Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Mrinal Roy vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 16 March, 2020
4 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL . GUWAHATI BENCH Orginal Application Nos, 040/00201/2018, 040/00210/2018, 6040/0021 1/2018, 040/002} 2/2018, 044/00225/2018 (M.A, Na. 044/00149/2018 & 043/00226/2018 (M.A. No. 043/00150/2018} HON'BLE MRS.MANJULA DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR.N.NEIHSIAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. OA. No. 2017/2018: (i) Shri Hitendra: Dattatray Kulkarni Son of Kote Datiatray V Kulkami Presantiy working as Deputy General Manager Telecom District. Tezpur, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, Tezpur -- 784001. fij Sh Vivekananda Nath Son of Late Dhani Ram Nath Presently working os Deputy Genera Manager (NOW -- 1} CM, Office of the Chief General Manager Telecom, Assam Circle, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, Tezpur -- 784001.
fii} Shri Bhupencira Kaushik Son of Shi SR Kaushik Presenily working oa Depuly General Monager {CFA}, Office of fhe Chief General Manager Telecom, NE ~ 1 Circle, " BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, Tezpur ~ 784001, iy} Shri Anup Kumar Verma Son of Shi RR Verma .
Presently working as Deputy General Manager {HQ}, Officer of ihe General Manager Telecom Distict, Nagaland SA. _ BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM UMITED, Tezpur + 784001. a _.Appticants By Advocate(s}: SiS. Dutta, Smi, U. Dutta &$r D. Neog. <VERSUS-
4, The Union ofindia | Represented by the Seerefary fo the Government of -- india Ministry of oe Communication ond information N ©:
"
NS & \ ee DAS Technalogy, Deparment -- of Telecommunicatian, Sanchar Bhavan, 26 Ashaka Road, New Dalhi-- 1, Bharat Sanchar Nigdrmtimifed fA Govt. of incia enterprise} Reorésented by the Chairman ond Managing Director, Bharal Sanchar Nigam Limited, Registered office: Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, HC Mathur Lane, Janpaih, New Delhi~ 1.
The Drector {HB} Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Corporate Office, Persannel ~1 Section, 3° Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, HCO Mathur Lane, danpath, New Delhi ~ 1.
The General Monager [Pers Bharad Sanchar Nigam Limited Carporate Office, persarinel ~ 1 Section, 3° Floor, Bharat Sanchor Bhawan, HC Mathor Lane Janpath, New Dalhi-- b. The Assistant? General Manager [Pers f Bhorat Sanchar Nigam Limited Corporale Office, Parsanne! ~1 Section, 4"
Floor, Sharat Sanchar Bhawan, HC Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhh-- 1.
The Assistant General Manag Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Carporate Office, Fersonnel ~DPC Sectian, 4% Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Jangath, New Delhi - 1.
yer {DPC} g g The Chief General Mander Telecom Assam Telecom Circle, BSNL, Administrative ~ Building, 83NL 8hewan, Panbarzar, Suwahal-- 7, The Chief General Manager Telacam NE-] Telecam Circle. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LUMITED, Shillang -- 793001, The Chief General Monacer Telecom a NE-2 Telecom. Circle, BHARAT SANCHAR HIGAM LIMITED, Dimapur -- 787112.
The General Manager Telecom District, Nogaiand SSA, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM IMITED, Dirnerour--- 797772
2 1h The. General Manager Telecom Distict, NE Tezpur S5SA, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM : LIMITED, Tezpur ~ 784001, =: : Si .aReaspondents By Advocate: Si B. Pathak. BSNL
2. OA No, 210/2018 (1) Si Mrinal Roy [Age 49 years) Son of Late Monindra Ray Flat No, 507. Apurba Beauly Apariment Sewalipath, Hatigaon, Guwahati - 781038. Los wa Apoicants By Advocate: $.K. Sikidar VERSUS-
1, Union of india Represented by the Secretary, Depariment of Telecommunication, Ministry -- of Communication and information Technology, Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001.
2, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Represenied. by Chairman and Managing Director, Harsh Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath New Delhi- 710001.
The Chief General Managet Assam Telecom Circle, BSNL, Panbazer, Suwahal-- 781001. :
is
- .. Respondents By Advocate: Sri 8. Pathak, BSNL
3. OVA. No. 2771/2018: f} Srl Ramesh Kumar (Age 52 years} O/o DGM.NETF, BSNL Admin Building Sadarghal Road, Sichar Assam, Pin = #88001.
{i} Sri Hrusikesh Patra { Aged SI Years) O/o the CGMT, NE-IT Circle, Dimapur Nagaland, 797112.
. Applicants By Advocote: SK, Sindar :
-VERSUS-
By Advocate:4 G.A. No. 2 2/2018: :
By Advocate:
1B. Pedhak, BSNL TL Union of india Represented by ihe Secretary. Department of Telecomrounication, Minisiry of | Ceammunication ~ <gd: information Technology, Sanchar Bhawan, 25 Ashoka Road: New Delhi~ 110001, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Represented by Chairman and Manogi ng Cxrector, Harish Choanecra Mathur Lane ancath New Delhi= 110001.
_ The Chief General Manager Assam Telecom ries, BSNL, Ponbagar, Guwohal +761 G0 the Chief General Manager NE-IL Circle, BSNL, Dimapur, Nagaland, F972 Sri Biswajif Lenka (Age 51 years) Son of Lote Mandar Dhar Lenka Office of fhe GMTD, BSNL, Graham Bazcir Dibrugarh -- 786001 {Assarn}.
- Applicants
-VERSUS-
Union ofindia Represenied by the secretary, Repariment- of Telecommunication, Minisiry.. of Communication ane! information Technology, Sa meher Bhowon, 20 Ashoka _ "Road, New Delhi-- 116001, Bharat Sanchar Nigum United .
_ Represented by Chairmon and Managing a Director, Harsh Chance Mathur Lane. Janpath New Gelhi---7TTG007, ae The Chief General Manager
-Oassarn Telecanr Cire 6, BSNL, Panbarzcr, Guwanall~ 781001.
. Respondents Pewee atin, Respondents 3 \ & ":
\ N Ni \ & \ \ LEE LLL LEE Hele aan & 5, O.A, No, 225/2018:
- By Advocate: 5.K. Sikidar By Advocate: $B. Pathak BSNL &. OA, No. 2226/2018: (1) Sri Alt Kumar Das (Age 49 years} Son of Sri Kamala Kania Das Divisione! Engineer. {Trans}, Officer of fhe General Menager, Telecom District. BSNL. _Alzwal -- 724307 {Mizoram}.
Apgicants Union of india Represented by the Secretary, Department af. Telecommunication,- Minisiry of Communication and Information Technology, Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoko _ Road, New Delhi -- 710001, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Represented by Chairman and Managing Director, Harsh Chondra Mathur Lane, Janpath New Delhi - 110001.
The Chief General Manager 'Assam Jelecom Circle, BSNL Ponbazar. Guwahal ~ 781001.
_.Raspandents Sri Srinivas Mohapatra [Age 50 years) Son of Late Neelamani Mohapatra Asstt. General Manager (Sales & Marketing} Office of ihe GMITD, BSNL, Barik Point, Shillong. Sri Pradeep Kumar Sahoo (Age 49 years) Son of faie Madan Mohan Sahoa Assit. Ganerol Manager (EB&iT}, Office of the Chief General Manager, NE! Telecom Circle, BSNL, Shillong.
. Applicants :
VERSUS-
yy _
-- Unionof India Represented by the Secretary, "Department of Telacammunication, Ministry af CenmUnicaien | caine information . Technology, Sonchar-Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi~ 110007.
Bharedt Sone har Nigar Limited _ Represented by Chairman and Manag! ing Cirectar, Hovish Chandra Mathur Lone, Janpaths New Delhi- 11000).
a. The Chief General Manager Assam Telecom Cirnde, BSNL, Panbazar, Guwahal - 7B LOOT, : Respondents By Acivecate: § SH 8. Paihe sk BSNL . IE] Date of hearings 25/02/2020 & 27/02/2020 Date of order, fb. 4, 8620 'Since these 6 {six} OAS are analogous involving in similar question of far wand facts, they are being decided by this common order.
2. By 0. A. No. 201/2018 applicant, under section 19 of the Administrative. Ti bunal Act, 1985 makes the following reliefs:
: "B11 That the action of ihe respondents be declared as egal and arbitrary and accordingly, The.
impugned orders/decisions as confained in the ugned {a} letter No. 412-03/2017-Pers.f dated 2018) {b) Office Order No. 412.03/2017-
. O3/2017-Pers Jl dated 06.06.2018: id} Office : Order No. 412-03/201 F-Pers. fil cated 06.06.0018:
ie) Office Order No. 413-03/2017-Pers1AV dated WR caarene nner ans gnannnnannnns . : renege oo A dated 06.06.2018 8; {ce} Offee Order No.-
ALLL ERLE HEE EEEPEELEEES "4 ros Sead 06.06.2018 and ff} Office Order No. 56-04/2017- Pers [DPC\/PL {06 dated 06.06.2018 (in so far as they relate ts the app fears} be set aside and quashed, "
8.2. . That. the" appl icants . be " dStiared enified to count their seniority on the basis of the result of fhe competitive examination 2003 and enjoy the benefils of the consequential promotions eamed"
3. By these ©.A. Nos, 210/2018, 211/2018, 25/2018 & 26/2018 the applicants under section 19 of the Administraive Tribunal Act, \765 makes the follawing reliefs:
"aps That the Hon' ble Tibunal may be pleased fo sei aside the imougned order of reversion cated 06.06.20) 8.
b} That the Hon'ble Tnbunal may furfher be pleased fo direct the respandenis fo release the seniority of applicant as was provided by the Department of Telecommunication."
4. in OAL. No. 040/00201 /2018, as there ore four applicants who are similarly studied and their grievances ¢ as well as reliefs seek are - 'common, this Thounal vide order dated 12.06. 201 Shad granted permission fo file the said O.A. jointly under Rule 4(5} (a), CAT, Procedure Rules 1987.
5. A prayer for grant of permission under Section 4(5) fa] of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 to move O.A. No. 211/2018 jointly is allowed as the applicants in the said OA are seeking similar relief fram the same respondents. Similarly, the same prayer for grant of permission under Section AlS}ia} of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 to move the another O.A. No. 3226/2018 joint Vv is allowed as the applicants in the OA are seeking sinnitar rele from the same respondenis. é. Brief facts narrated by all he applicants of said O.As. are. that al the four applicants of fhe O.A. No. 040/00201,/2018 are » presently working as Deputy General Manager (Ad-hoc) ae the applicants of O.A. Nas. 210/2018, "A, 211/2018, 22/2 2018 & 226/2018 are presently working 5
- Assistant General Manager/DE vide promotion order dated 90.07.2010. 7 The sole promotion was freguiarised vide a regular promotion order dated 20.08.20)4. All ine aoplicanis were appainted as sunior Telecom Officer {in short JTO}) uncer the BSNL authors agains the recruiiment year 1989, 1991, 1972, 1993 respectively the goplicanis appeared for Deportmental Qualifying and Competitive Examination in the year 2003 which was held cheer direction and control of Depariment of Telecommunication {DoT}. All the applicants were successful in the examination ond thus, promoted to The post of sub- Divisional Engineer.
7, The applicants made thelr grevances that vide impugned communication order dated 06.06.2018, the BSNL RLLLLLLLLEEELELLELELLELEELEEELLL \\ authorities cancelled the promotion granted to the applicants in the rank of DGM/AGM besides the seniority granted to them and directing for raversian of the applicants by wo stages of the rank of Sub-Divisional Engineer after more. than o decade. The said order has been passed without any opportunity of hearing to the applicants and in convention of TES (Group 8 post) recruitment rules 1986. AN Boo. Heard Sil $, nee counsel for the cpplicants ms} of O.A, No. 201/2018, Sri $ Sikidar, learned counsel for ibe applicants of OA. Nos, 210/2018, 211/2018, 212/2018, 225/2018 & 226/2018 and Sri B. Pathak, learned BSNL Counsel! forthe resoondents.
eB "Both the learned counsel for fhe applicants submitted that the impugned arders have peen sued 7 without considering ihe relevant applicable rules Le. the Telegraph Engi neer ing Service (Group B Posts) Recnitment RY sles. ot 1981 (whi ich was amended in 1986). The eligi billy "criteria of the RR 1981 Le | Basler Engineer who has ' comp ieted five years regular service in the grade on the fist . of January of the year shal be eligible for appearing | in the upc" has. been amended in the year 1986 as "Junior Engi neers rectuited | in that grade against the vacancy ofa yo "and set-asic 19 year ordinarily for not less than five years prior to fhe year of the announcement of such examination'. According to learned counsel this aspect has not been considered by the BSNL authori fle and inerefore, the impugned orders are not sustal naib e in the eves of low iB was further submitted that the impugned orders having been issued withaut providing an opportunity fo the > 4\ applicants: who have been adversely affected by the *) demotion tO the lower post and lowering of his seniority position, virtually allowing his junior fo steal a march, therefore, the same are lable fo be quashed and sel aside. The impugned order being a result af misinteroretation of the order: passed by the court in the sense that the applicant's along wih M47 others have been made en-bloc juniors tofhe officers who have passed. the Departmental. Quatifying | Examination (DGE} | in 199) despite clear observation of the coun that ine applic canis along with 14% others: ought to be considered ip the vacancies arising I TP94-GS. 95-96, 96-97 and: therefor the impugned orders are liable ta be quashed actions of of the applicable | rules and mi nsinterpretation of the order &. 0 jo Jearned counsel, the impugned"
LLL:
it passed by the court are prima facie illegal, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of the Constitution of india, ON a, ian According io both the learned counsel, the said impugned orders have not been issued in administrative exigencies Inosmuch it would create an unhealthy office atmosphere due to demotion of the applicant to the lower post. The impugned orders have been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice such as not affording an *] opportunity fo be heard before issuing the impugned orders thereby demoting one functional level posts (from AGM to SDE} and absence of odministrative fair play. Hence demoting ihe applicants by one functional level post after working in those posts for more than 8 years is by no stretch of imagination be considered.as fair and just. There is no fault or foul play on the part of the applicants in getting those. promotions from M10 to SDE fa AGM. The applicant applied for the LDCE 2000/2003 as per the then nofification of 1998/2003, was made eligible as per the RRs and was allowed to sit for the said examination by the BSNL authorities. 'Having passed fhe said examination, they were promoted ton those posts cas per the then existing rules. Y 12 12, Bath the counsel for the coolicants further submitted that from the impugned orders if appear that reassignment oF seniority in respect of successful candidates like the applicant's, in other paris of the country was challenged by some officers of the respondents before the Emakulum Bench.
13. if was further submitted fhat in the proceedings 4\ before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Emakulum Bench / the present applicants were nat made parties. So, they have "reason to believe thal thelr seniority ond consequential benefits will never be questioned.
14, Main planks of the arguments of both the leamed counsel. for the applicants ore that the applicants being officers of the Recruitment year 198? as shown in the Officer Order No. 4} 203/201 7-pers.f/ill dated 06.06.2018 and Officer Order No. 412-03/2017-pers.1/IV dated 0606.2018 and as clarified vide clarification dated 11.01.1999 and 26.08.2003, they were eligible fo. participate in the cornpefitive examination held in the year 2003 for the vacancy years up fo 22.07.1996 and in this view of the matter, the impugned pondents to hold them ineligible and/or decision of the re though ellg : le but bot fit for ihe relevant vacancies are MLE UM MYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEXExTEZEZEEEEEEEEZEZZZZZZEEE_ 24
13. illegal, contrary To the Recruitment Rules, 1981 (as amended fime to time up to the year 1987) and as such, the impugned decisions.are liable to be set aside and quashed.
15. it was further submitted by the learned counsel that - the said reversion order is penalty under CCS(CCA) rules 1965 which {s applicable to the applicants but cannot be inflicted without any opportunity of hearing. \ 16. The. aniedated seniorly of the applicanis on fhe basis of the result of the competitive examination 2003 and the consequential promotions earned have never been questioned by anyone ner such issue arose before the
-Ernakulum Bench of this Tibounal and in the proceedings connected thereto and as such, on the basis of the decision rendered inter parte in the said proceedings, the seniority and promotions of the aoplicants could not have been cancelled and in this view the matter, the impugned decisions (in so far as fhey relate to the applicants} are liable to be set aside and quashed.
7. On the ofher hand, the respondents In thelr written stafement at para é stated that ql 1998 since DoT did not hold DQE/LDCE, some of the ampioyees fled cases before 'the Central Administrative Triounal, Ernakulum Bench which in order dated : 13.07 assigning proper ran a4 fo hold the Combined Qualifying turned» gave" directi 7 Examination (OQE-cumL0CE for. Hhirg up the vacancy existing prior io! 23. 07.1996 vide udgerient dated 01.05.1998. in. compliance, DoT sued Notification dafed 06.11.1998 In which the vacancy year mentioned were 1994 to 1997 and the examination was held in year 2000. 38: The respondents contended that certain other " categories candidates fled cases before the Emakulum ' Bench, wh ich jum directed the DoT fo hald a special "Supplementary qual Wving cum competitive examination in continuation with the one held in the year 2000. The specia Supp! ementary aval fying cum competitive examination was held in September 2003 and total 147 cancdicates came oul successful in both fhe examination held in the year 2000 and 2003. However, the Dot did not promofe and assign seniority. to these 147 offical is. Loter these 147 official were promoted by Dat but not assigned seniority. er Being agoreved of not being assigned seniority, 147) officials in OP No. 3713 of 2001 and 21656 of 2001 had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala which vide is ( é gave directions fo DoT for merely ing/seniorify ta these officers by placing 18 them over those who have been mromited to the vacancies occurring sate than. 22.07.1996. _ She 'seid order was jmplemenied and accordingly Dot '@ighed "seniority to these officers against the vacaney 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-96 (up to 22.07.1996).
20. Not being satisfied with the dbove seniority position - assigned by DoT/BSNL in compliance of High Court order SD dated 13.07.2006 in OP CAT No. 37134/2001), some of the | officials belonging to 147 'group of officers filed cP No. 713/2007 in OP CAT No. 371 34/2001 before the Kerala High Court seeking seniority from vacancy year 1990 onwards instead if 1994 onwards. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court dropped the CP vide order dated 09.10.2007 while observing "that the seniority assigned by DoT/BSNL fo these officer was in order, 2i. lirespective of the above order by which the CP was dropped, DoT vide its order dated 27.03.2008, revised the seniority position of 147 officers { 33 1/3% LDCE) by assigning -- them seniority fram the year 1990 onwards by faking a due_ from the Hon'ble Kerala High Court's observation in para 11 of its judgement dated 09.10.2007. The para 1] of the above order reads as hereunder:
16
ppiion. if forcany reagor, the compiainant was:
by the ranking assigned fo him... A separate action wauid arse for him and he can cause"
definiely question the ranking assigned fo him in the fi inca See Ne yi list.... BOfore an. appropiate forum." Aécordingly: som 12 of the 147 officers, by vidue of ineir higher seniority, were promated fo DEAdhoc vide Dot's order ~ dared 29.09.2008.
Respondents further contended that the above two orders of DoT /BSNI were challenged by the seniorly quota RS 3} officers (46 9) 39 %) who were not permitted to appear in the said competitive examination on the ground that they were dlready promoted Ghder qualifying examination quota (66 2/39) against vacancies for earlier we years prior fo vacancy 1994, "whereas the qualifying cum compelifive examination was held for the vacancies arising from 1994 fo 1996, Thus they argued that assigning seniority fo 147 Group of offices from 1990 onwards while debarring them appearing in the Qualifying-cum-Competilive eas] held during the year 2000 and 2003 is discriminatory.
it was further contended that in order towards the" seniority quota officers who were diready enjoying ihe seniority pefore 1994 by virtue of their appointment against 2/34 quota. "ond rot permitied to appear in combined v competitive examination "along with these 147 officers challenged Dots above two orders before the Tibuncl, Ernakulum Bench. The Tribunal vide order dated 05.02.2010 quashed both seniority and promotion of the 147 candidates and directed the DoT as follows: | "in view of the above, OA is allowed. The Inpugned senionfy ot Annexure A-7? and the Annexure A-32 promotion order issued based on AnnexureA-? seniority cre hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed not to disturbed the seniority of the applicants. and similarly situated individuals by interpolating ihe senionty of the combined compelitive exam quaiified incliviciuals{147} whose seniarty has fo be below that of fhose who had passed in the qualifying examination oor fo 1996. Seniarity list should therefore be recast accordingly. further, promotion fo fhe past of executives (TES graup 8 felecarm should be on the basis of the races! seniority!."
Zo) According fo the respondenis, against the order of the Hon'ble Trbunal, Enakulum Bench, the WPIC} No, 2626/2010 filed by BSNL along with other writ petition filed by the private artes Was dismissed by ihe Division Bench of the:
'Hon'ble High Court of Keralai and orders passed on 01.07.2013. The operative para of the High Court judgement 7 dated 01.07,201 3 follows as hereunder: | "47, Merely because the LOCE was not held from 1989 thot does not creale o vesied right in ihe 147 candidates fo be assigned seniority In the 1/3 quota of [DCE from the year 1990 onwards. We have clready' found thatthe DGE and LDCE exams held In 2000-2008 were only jo fhe vacancies of 1994-95, 1995-946 and .
199897 fup fo 22.7,1996). The pramotion fo the DQE quota con only be from the year in. which o candidate -- qualified. The promotion on the basis of the LDCE can aisa be only to those 1/3 avallable vacancies in the year of the LOCE. The distinction is in so far as fhe DOE is 1 considered {6 the 2/6 quota from the year in which he:
qualifies visa-vwis the seniodty among the DGE candidates: and on the basis of his qualification. fs considered in all the subsequent years. While the LDCE js considered only to the vacofheies available in that ee - 4 the rank onfained by a. candidate not entting & - tobe cansidereci in any subsequent years, 14? candidaies ought fo be considered for "vos encies in 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 1994) according jo their meri as also their y appear for the combined examination, The year has fo be considered since. one exarnination was held fer inree: years. A entited fo appear in 1996 (by reasan of ag five years of requiar service in the feeder an He 1s of ihe January of ine le ears age on the ak OVE 5 lines: sbviously, tne officl 'al respondent ought {¢ do so. In the circumstances, we do not find "any reason fo differ from the decision of the Tribunal impugned In the wil petitions interfere with ine dismissal of the review applications impugned in the Original Pel iors (CAT). The Whi Petifion ond Original Patilians (CAT) y are dismissed, however, with no costs."
24, - tha respon contended that in view of the dismissal of the sip by the Apex Court, the BSNL is now bound by law to implement ihe order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dated O10 7.2013 which holds the fleld in determin | ing. the genio yot 147 LOCE officials and ineir eligibility lo appear . for the | compet itive quota examination, Including the 'applicant before this tibunal.
2a. At the relevant time of aniry of the applicants into. the service, the recritment to the. post of Assistant Engineer (ncrw re-designat ed d SDE) was governed under the Telegraon Engineering ervices {Group 'B post} recruliment rules 1981, 43 as amended by the TES (Group B posts} Amendment Rules, 1986 vide notification dated 02.05.1986. The ractuitment to the most of Assistant Engineer (SD€) was 10 be made through hwo modes of promotions:
[a) Deparimental Qualifying Examination (DQE) for 66.2/3 % of promotion quata,
(b) Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) md\ for 33.1/3 % from the promotion quota.
a. in the clause 5 of the gazette of India exiraordinary para 2. Section 3(1) provides that : Wegatty for appearing in each part of the above examination shall be as :
{al Departmental Qualifying Examination: (i) Junior Engineer who have. completed five Jers of regular service in the grade on the qs January of the year in which the:
examination is held. _ | {b) Lirnited: Departmental Competitive Examination: (i) Junior Engineer who have completed five years of requiar service in "the grade on ihe 1# January of the year in which the. examination is held."
26, Learned counsel. Sri §. Dutta for the amplicants has drawn our attention to the clarification dated 11.01.1999 issued by the Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecornmun 2 ations, Government of Indica combined examination would be held in April, departmental 20 clarified as hereunder:
2.
ating to the qvabfying-curr-compelitive 1999 where iT wes SL | Puirdts raised Clarification
4. (Whether the 5 yeors service | Jfs/JTOs appointed agains! | tweulel be counted! from. the | the vacancies for up te _}dote of aopcinfmentte the | 1293 are eligible for _[ grade or fom the year of | appecring ir ihe |
- incies agains} which | examinaton 6 JESfITOs appainted : against the vacarwiss for up to 1993 are eligible for appearing in fhe examination The applicant contended by means of clarification dated 26.08.2008 which was clarified as hereunder:
28.
Teversion order no 'show cause potice was issued fo the Si raised by | Clerification No. for . fication q s which date to! JE;HOs: appointed agains! ddte five the vacancies up fo 1993 "ys fogular Service | ore eligible fer appearing in] he cadre JEATO ihe exam hraspective of the be faken info | length of service wie for the Yes We have 'hofed that before issuing impugned CEE 2a applicant nor any opportunity was given to the applicants to represent thelr case. Moreover, the: present applicants wate _ not in' the proceedings of OA, 36/2809 of Central Administrative THbunal, Emakuium Bench where the 'applicants name were clubbed with 147 group that to without challenging thelr two promotions.
29. From the perusal of the order passed by the Cenfral _ Administrative Tribunal, Emakulum Bench in O.A. No. 86/2009 Ht dodeok that. iP was directed that seniority of LDCE- {individual of 147) has to be below that of those who had "passed in the qualifying examination prior fo 1996, The said order was assailed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C} No. 2622/2010. The BSNL authorities and others had fect SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of the Hon'ble High Court af Kerala which was dismissed in imine,
30. We have nofed thaf the Hon'ble High Court of Kerola did not give any direction bul made some advisory manner.
3}. The applicants confended that reversion is a punishment under Article 311{2] of the Constifulion of india and under rule 33(a} of BSNL CDA rules. All the applicaris were revatign ron ve nlor to lower orade through impugned > order dated 06.06.2018 that foo without even throwing any show-cause notice or offering any opporUnity fo represent thelr cases for defence. As such, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 06.06.2018 was issued in gross violation of principle of natural justice.
32. After taking info entire conspectus of the case and \ after discussion made in foregoing paragraphs, we are of ine view that justice will be mel ifwe remand back fhe matter to the BSNL respondents fo give opportunity to the apolicants to represent their case and affer hearing of them, the respondent author es shall fake a decision by a asonedl Rang speaking order which will be communicated fo the applicants forthwith. Ordered accordingly. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned reversion order dated 06.06.2018 by making stay absolute which was oassed as an interim orders vide order dated 12.03.2018 &13.06.2018 respectively.
33. Liberty is granted fo the applicanis fo approach before this Tribunal ¥ fhey are not satisfied with the decision of the respondent authorities.
34. - OAL stands disposed of No order as fo costs, Cansequenily, Misc. Application If any, same 'also stands ON ee tg dispased of.
Sd/-
Maniula Das Hon'ble Member) _ Mir §. Naihsial fee Hon'ble Member {A} 3 LMA h de