Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Mrs Susmita Mana vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 5 November, 2024
1 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022
Reserved on 04.11.2024 Pronounced on 05.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Mrs. Sushmita Mana, aged about 58 years, wife of
Nirmal Chandra Saha, At- 18-Budheswari Colony,
Bhubaneswar, District- Khordha, At present working as
T.G.T (Sanskrit) (1st Shift) at Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1,
Bhoi Nagar, Unit IX, Bhubaneswar.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Commissioner, Kendriaya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18-
Industrial Area, Sahidjit Singh Marg, New Delhi.
2. Joint Commissioner (Administration), Kendriaya
Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18-Industrial Area, Sahidjit Singh
Marg, New Delhi.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Regional Office, Pragati Vihar, Mancheswar,
Bhubaneswar-751017.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. J.Pal, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. H.K.Tripathy, Counsel
2 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant, a Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) has filed this OA on 11.05.2022 praying therein as under:
"......to quash Annexure-15 and 16 which is not in conformity with the judgment dated 27.08.1999 of this Hon'ble Tribunal passed in TA No. 3 of 1999 and further direct the respondent to give the applicant's seniority from the date of Kum. Sunita Asre joined the TGT in the organization and to grant her all consequential service and financial benefits within a stipulated period as deemed fit and proper.
And/or pass such other order/orders."
2. As stated in the pleadings, which have been reiterated by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant in course of hearing, since the applicant was denied appointment to TGT (Sanskrit) even after her selection pursuant to notification issued in the year 1994, she approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in OJC No. 7856 of 1997. While the matter stood thus, the Govt. of India issued notification dated 17.12.1998 conferring jurisdiction over the institution to this Tribunal and, based on such notification, the aforesaid OJC was transferred by the Hon'ble 3 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022 High Court of Orissa vide order dated 10.05.1999 to this Tribunal, which was renumbered as TA 3 of 1999.
2.1 The said TA No. 3/1999 was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 27.08.1999. The respondents department challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in OJC No. 13639/1999, which was dismissed on 06.05.2008. The matter was carried to Hon'ble Apex Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18599/2008 and the same was also dismissed on 11.08.2008. Thereafter, in compliance of the order of this Bench, offer of appointment was issued to the applicant in the post of TGT (Sanskrit) on 03.10.2008, pursuant to which, she joined on 17.10.2008.
2.2 According to the applicant, one Kumari Sunita Asre, who was selected pursuant to said notification of the year 1994, joined KV in the year 1995 at TGT (Sanskrit) and her name was shown at Sl. No. 756 of the seniority list. Hence, time and again, after joining, the applicant requested to fix her seniority in the grade of TGT (Sanskrit) notionally from the date when one Kumari Sunita Asre had joined and, since no action was taken, she finally submitted representation on 11.03.2016 praying therein to fix her seniority at par with Ku. Asre. It is submitted 4 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022 that Ku. Asre was promoted to PGT albeit her name did not find place in the Provisional Common All India Seniority list of TGT published as on 01.04.2011, circulated vide letter dated 29.11.2017. 2.3 It is further submitted that on perusal of the seniority, she found that persons appointed from 1995 to 2006 have been made senior to her. Finally, in letter dated 15.09.2021, the seniority position of the applicant as TGTs as on 01.04.2016 was fixed at Sl. No. 5271. Subsequently, respondents vide letter dated 29.11.2017 granted the notional seniority as on 01.04.2011 placing her name at Sl. No. 3621-A. Applicant on 19.03.2022 sought information relating to the date of joining of Ku. Asre as TGT (Sanskrit) in KV at Brajarajnagar, Odisha but she was intimated vide letter dated 08.04.2022 that the information sought being a third party information cannot be disclosed as per the RTI Act. It is the case of the applicant that since she was illegally denied appointment to TGT (Sanskrit), which was ultimately removed allowing her to join after upholding the order of this Bench by the Hon'ble Apex Court, her seniority as per the order of this Bench ought to have been assigned from the date of Kumari Sunita Asre joined as 5 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022 TGT with all consequential service and financial benefits retrospectively.
2.4 The respondents department finally intimated in letter dated 15.09.2021 that as All India seniority list of TGT as on 01.01.2004 was subject wise in which Kr. Sunita Asre seniority No. 756 in TGT (Skt.) seniority. However, the provisional seniority list of TGTs as on 01.04.2011 was combined for all subject. Therefore, she was allotted seniority No. 3621-A as per seniority list 01.04.2011 vide letter dated 10.09.2018 and, accordingly, seniority No. 2581 was allotted to her as per provisional All India seniority list of TGTs as on 01.01.2016. In the circumstances, it is submitted that there is no delay and, therefore, by filing MA No. 460/2022, applicant has prayed to condone the delay and decide the matter on merit by granting the reliefs sought by her in this OA.
3. Respondents filed their objection to the MA 460/2022 objecting the very maintainability of this OA on the ground of delay and laches/limitation and, in support of their stand, they have placed reliance on the following decisions:
(i) Prabodh Verma Vs. State of U.P., (1984) 4 SCC 251;6 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022
(ii) State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Madan Mohan Joshi & Ors, (2008) 6 SCC 797;
(iii) Indu Shekhar Singh & Ors Vs. State of U.P, (2006) 8 SCC 129;
(iv) Vijaya Kumar Kaul & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors, (2012) 7 SCC 610;
(v) Ranjan Kumar & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, (2014) 16 SCC 187;
(vi) State of Utttaranchal Vs. Shivram Singhy, 2013 (6) SLR 629 (SC);
(vii) UOI Vs. M.K.Sarkar, (2009) 8 Supreme 97;
(viii) Londhe Prakash Bhagwan Vs. Dattatraya Ekanath Mane & Ors, (2013) 10 SCC 627;
(ix) Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors Vs. State of Orissa & Ors, (2010) 12 SCC 471;
(x) Ramachandran Sharkar Deodhar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317;
(xi) Tilokchand Motichand Vs. H.B.Munshi, (1969)1 SCC 1101;
(xii) M.Ramakotaiah & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors, (2007) 14 SCC 405;
(xiii) R.S.Makashi & Ors Vs. I.M.Menon & Ors, (1982) 1 CC 379;
(xiv) Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza Vs UOI & Ors, (1976( 1 SCC 599;
7 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022
(xv) B.S.Bajwa & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors, (1998) 2 SCC 523;
(xvi) Dayaram Asanand Gursahani Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, (1984) 3 SCC 523;
4. Insofar as merit of the matter is concerned, it has been submitted that Ku. Sunita Asre joined KVS in 1995 while the applicant joined KVS on 17.10.2008 in pursuance of the offer of appointment issued to her in compliance of the order of this Bench. On verification of provisional seniority list of TGTs published as on 01.04.2001, her name does not find place therein since she has been working as PGT (Hindi) since 23.09.1997. In the panel of Bhubaneswar region of 1995-96, the name of applicant appears at Sl. No. 33 whereas name of Ku. Asre appears at Sl. No. 28. The applicant was allotted seniority position at Sl. No. 3621- A in the combined gradation list of TGT as on 01.04.2011, which was duly communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 10.09.2018. Thereafter, on her representation, she was intimated vide letter dated 15.09.2021 that in the All India Seniority list of TGTs published as on 01.01.2004 subject wise, in which the name of Ku. Asre was placed at Sl. No. 756 in TGT (Sanskrit). The provisional seniority list of TGTs was combined for all subjects, therefore, the applicant's seniority was 8 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022 notionally shown at Sl. No. 3621-A, accordingly, she was assigned the seniority no. 2581 in the All India Seniority list of TGT as on 01.01.2016. It is submitted that the applicant did not make all the persons, who shall be affected by virtue of change of the seniority position as party to this OA and, therefore, change of the seniority position of the applicant at this long distance place and time would not only adversely jeopardize the interest of the others but it would tantamount to unsettling of settled position after a long lapse of time. It is submitted there is absolutely no illegality and irregularity in the matter of assignment of the position in the seniority list, which was done strictly in accordance with rules and law. Hence, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has vociferously prayed for dismissal of this OA on the ground of delay/laches/limitation besides on merit.
5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties concerned and perused the records.
6. It is seen that the applicant was selected to the post of TGT (Sanskrit) in pursuance of advertisement issued by the KVS but for one reasons or the other since she was not given appointment, she approached Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, which was subsequently 9 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022 transferred to this Tribunal and disposed of with direction to the respondents to issue appointment order for the post of TGT (Sanskrit) in favour of the applicant within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order and count her seniority notionally from the date Ku. Sunita Asre joined the post of TGT (Sanskrit). Admittedly, the aforesaid order of this Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court and she joined the KVS as TGT (Sanskrit) on 17.10.2008. It is also not in dispute that in the panel of Bhubaneswar region of 1995-96, the name of applicant appears at Sl. No. 33 whereas name of Ku. Asre appears at Sl. No. 28. According to the applicant, she requested the authorities time and again for granting her seniority position at par with Kr. Asre but no action was taken thereon. Ld. Counsel for the respondents in course of hearing denied such assertion. The applicant also did not furnish any evidence in support of such plea. However, it is further submitted that she made representation on 11.03.2016 praying therein to place her in the seniority list at par with Ku. Asre but on perusal of the said representation it is seen that she has requested to furnish the panel position and not against showing her name in the seniority list. After near about two years she submitted another representation on 10 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022 20.08.2018, which was replied by the respondents in letter dated 10.09.2018 stating therein that in the panel of Bhubaneswar region of 1995-96, she was placed at Sl. No. 33 and Ku. Asre was placed at Sl. No.
28. Again, after near about two and half years, i.e. on 19.02.2021 she submitted application, which was replied on 15.09.2021. Hence, he has filed his OA on 14.09.2022 praying to quash the orders dated 10.09.2018 and 15.09.2021 and direct the respondents to give her seniority from the date Ku. Asre joined as TGT (Sanskrit) in KVS.
7. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be re- opened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. The inordinate delay for making such grievance alone is sufficient to decline interference in the matter is well settled (B.S.Bajwa & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors, (1998) 2 SCC 523).
8. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 259, considered the effect of delay in challenging the promotion and seniority list and held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of 11 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022 other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period. A party should approach the Court just after accrual of the cause of complaint.
9. Detailing the complications and defects arising from a challenge to a seniority list long years after it was created, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India and others, (1976) 1 SCC 599 observed as follows:
"9. Although security of service cannot be used as a shield against the administrative action for lapse of a public servant, by and large one of the essential requirement of contentment and efficiency in public service is a feeling of security. It is difficult no doubt to guarantee such security in all its varied aspects, it should at least be possible to ensure that matters like one's position in a seniority list after having been settled for once should not be liable to be re-opened after lapse of many years in the instance of a party who has itself intervening party chosen to keep quiet. Raking up old matters like seniority after a long time is likely to resort in administrative complications and difficulties. It would, therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness and efficiency of service that such matters should be given a quietus after lapse of some time."
10. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dayaram Asanand Gursahani Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported at (1984) 3 SCC 523 by holding that in absence of a 12 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022 satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay from 8 to 9 years, the challenge to the seniority could not be entertained.
11. Similarly, in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. T.T.Murali Babu, 2014 (4) SCC 108, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows"
9. "Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty 13 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022 and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."
12. In P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.
13. In Brijesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2014 (11) SCC 351, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is also a well settled principle of law that if some person has taken a relief approaching the Court just or immediately after the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit thereof approaching the court at a belated stage for the 14 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022 reason that they cannot be permitted to take advantage of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person.
14. In the case of Indu Shekhar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, reported at (2006) 8 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing the necessity of impleading persons who would be affected by the determination of seniority, ruled as follows:
"56. There is another aspect of the matter. The appellants herein were not joined as parties in the writ petition filed by the respondents. In their absence, the High Court could not have determined the question of inter se seniority."
15. As discussed above, the applicant allowed the things to go unchallenged from the date of his joining on 17.10.2008 till submission of first representation on 11.03.2016 wherein she sought to furnish the panel position and, on her representation dated 20.08.2018, she was intimated in letter dated 10.09.2018 that her seniority has been correctly assigned. The delay caused in between has not been explained in the MA 460/22 or even in course of hearing. Applicant also did not make any of the persons, who might be affected in the event of alteration of seniority list at this distance place of time, as party 15 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022 respondents in this OA. Therefore, in view of the facts and law discussed above, this Tribunal is not inclined to interfere in this matter.
16. In the result, this OA stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS