Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Shivashankar L Lamani on 3 April, 2014
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NOS.7377-92 OF 2012(S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS,
NO.20, SANCHAR BHAVAN,
ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS,
NO.20, SANCHAR BHAVAN,
ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CUM CHAIRMAN
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.
BHARAT SANCHAR BHAWAN
2
H.C.MATHUR LANE, JANPATH,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
4. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA TELECOM CIRCLE
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.
NO.1, SWAMY VIVEKANANDA ROAD,
HALASURU, BANGALORE - 560 008.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI
VISHNU BHAT & SRI D.T.NANJESH GOWDA,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SHIVASHANKAR L LAMANI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O LAXMAN
OCCN: JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER
DEVARHIPPARAGI
UNDER SDE DEVARHIPARAGI
BIJAPUR TELECOM DISTRICT.
2. MAHESH H B
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O C BASAVAIAH,
OCCN: JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER
TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ARAKALGUD
HASSAN TELECOM DISTRICT.
3. BORAIAH H
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O C HUCHAIAH OCC:JUNIOR TELECOM
OFFICER OUTDOOR,
3
O/O SDE(OUTDOOR)
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR UNDER DE
HOSAKEREHALLI, BANGALORE
BANGALORE TELECOM DISTRICT.
4. BALEKUNDRI N T
S/O TUKARAM
OCCN:JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER,
TELEPHONE EXCHANGE SHIVABASAVANAGAR
O/O SDE (PHONES) NORTH
BELGAUM, BELGAUM TELECOM DISTRICT.
5. SUNDAR N K
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O KEMPA
OCCN: JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER
OUTDOOR BELTHANGADI,
O/O SDE (PHONES)
BELTHANGDI, MANGALORE TELECOM
DISTRICT.
6. PUTTARAMA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O RAJA NAIK
OCCN:JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER
DOMMASANDRA TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
O/O DE (RURAL) EAST,
BANGALORE, BANGALORE TELECOM DISTRICT.
7. VASUDEV M R
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O LAT L RAJEEV
OCCN: JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER
OUTDOOR BAJPE, UNDER SDE BAJPE
MANGALORE MANGLORE TELECOM DISTRICT.
4
8. NAGARAJU M
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE K MUNISWAMY
OCCN:JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER (OUTDOOR)
O/O SDE VIJAYANAGAR ( EXTERNAL) SOUTH
BANGALORE-560 040
BANGALORE TELECOM DISTRICT
9. SRINIVASAN K B
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE PADMANABHAN,
OCCN:JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER COMPUTER
CELL
O/O DGM COMPUTER CELL, CTO,
BANGLORE - 560 001
BANGALORE TELECOM DISTRICT
10. PURUSHOTTAM N
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE PADMANABHAN,
OCCN:JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER COMPUTER
CELL
O/O DGM COMPUTER CELL, CTO,
BANGALORE,BANGALORE TELECOM DISTRICT.
11. THAMARAJ SELVAN M
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O LATE K.C.MANI, OCCN:SDE (CABLES)
NORTH ULSOOR, BANGALORE - 560 008
BANGALORE TELECOM DISTRICT.
12. RANGASWAMY HY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O C.YALAVAIAH,
OCCN:JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER,
5
NAPOKLU MADIKERI, MADIKERI TELECOM
DISTRICT.
13. RATHOD M S
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O SHAMU P RATHOD
OCCN:JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER SINDGI
UNDER SDCA SINDGI
BIJAPUR TELECOM DISTRICT.
14. KUMARASWAMY R G
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O D GURAPPA,
OCCN:JUNIOR TELECOMOFFICER
HULIYUR
TUMKUR TELECOM DISTRICT.
15. RAMESH B
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O BHIMALA NAIK,
OCCN:JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER (GROUPS)
TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ANJANA NAGAR,
O/O DE BASAVESHWARANAGAR OUTDOOR,
BANGALORE - 560 008
BANGALORE TELECOM DISTRICT.
16. UDAYAKUMAR D
AGED ABOUT 40 YERS,
S/O LATE G DEVARAJ
OCCN:JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER
O/O DE INTERNAL ULSOOR
BANGALORE-560008
BANGALORE TELECOM DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
6
(BY SRI P.A.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R5-R7,
R11-R13 & R16)
*****
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE
HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH DATED 15.11.2011 IN TA
NO.230/2009 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AS THE SAME IS
UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF
LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE TA
230/2009.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
HEARING THIS DAY, K.L.MANJUNATH J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The Department of Telecom being aggrieved by the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore vide order dated 15.11.2001 in Transfer Application No.230/2009, the present petitions are filed.
7
2. Heard Shri.P.S.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and Shri.P.A.Kulkari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The admitted facts are as hereunder:
The respondents were working as Telecom Technical Assistant (TTA) under the fourth respondent. They belong to Scheduled Caste category. Subsequently, they were promoted as Junior Telecom Officers (JTO) between 28.08.1998 to 24.10.1998. Their grievance before the Tribunal was that though they were promoted from the feeder cadre of TTA to JTO their entitlement / eligibility have not been included in the final All India Eligibility List of JTOs for consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to the cadre of Telecom Engineering Services Group 'B' against the vacancy year of 2001-2002 and 8 onwards under the reservation for S.C. reserved quota of 75% seniority-cum-fitness promotional quota as per 1996 Recruitment Rules of SDE.
4. It is their specific case that they had appeared for the screening test in the year 1995 and they were qualified. In the said examination, 37 SC candidates and 13 ST candidates were qualified for promotion to the cadre of JTO and respondent nos.1 to 9 were selected for promotion against the vacancies of the recruitment year of 1994 and respondent nos.10 to 16 were selected in promotion against the vacancies of 1995 recruitment year. Contending that their names are not included in the All India Eligibility List of JTOs for holding DPC for promotion to SDE (TES Group-B) grade, they approached the Tribunal.
5. The writ petitioners filed the counter before the Central Administrative Tribunal. According to them 9 the names of the respondents were not included since they were promoted against the order of Recruitment of 1997. It is also their case that after the SC/ST candidates were deputed for JTO training in the year 1993 year of recruitment, a review was conducted for the candidates in Technical Assistant Cadre and supplementary results were declared and 4 SC and 1 ST candidates were appointed against 1994 recruitment. Against the balance vacancies of 1994-1995 year of recruitment, 37 SC candidates and 13 ST candidates were deputed for JTO training after obtaining an undertaking from these TTAs and sent for training as per the marks obtained in the TTA training. According to them, no error is committed in not including the name in the All India Eligibility List of JTO for further promotion to the post of group-B. In the circumstance, the writ petitioners requested the Tribunal to dismiss the application.
10
6. The Tribunal after hearing the parties held that a direction has to be issued to the writ petitioners to include the names of the applicants and similarly situated other SC officials who were recruited against the 1994-1995 JTOs examination and who had completed three years of service as on 01.01.2002 in the All India Eligibility List 2002-2003 and to conduct a review DPC for the SC quota vacancies of SDE cadre reserved for the recruitment year 2002-2003 onwards. Four months time was granted to complete this exercise. Being aggrieved by the directions issued by the Tribunal, the present petitions are filed.
7. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the petition and issuing a direction to redo the seniority. According to the writ petitioners, the respondents were promoted in the year 1999. Pursuant to the direction 11 issued by the Hon'ble Tribunal in original Application No.1306/2001, their date of appointment were preponed from various dates from August'1998 to October'1998. According to the petitioners pursuant, to a Corrigendum issued as per Annexure-R1 for the recruitment year 1997, seniority list of JTOs were prepared and that the respondents without challenging the seniority assigned to them in the cadre of JTOs on the basis of the order of recruitment had sought for a direction from the Tribunal to include their names in all India Eligibility List of JTOs, so as to entitle them to consider them for the promotion to SDE cadre against the vacancy year 2001-2002. According to the petitioners there is a delay in approaching the Tribunal and the Tribunal was required to dismiss the petition only on the ground of delay and latches. The further contention of the writ petitioners before us is that the findings of the Tribunal in Annexure-R1 is incorrect, 12 bad in law and without application of mind. Therefore, the petitioners requests the court to allow these writ petitions.
8. Shri.P.A. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supporting the order of the Tribunal requests the court to dismiss the petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the dispute involved in this petition falls within a narrow compass. The question is: whether the names of the respondents are to be included in the All India Eligibility List of JTOs in order to consider them for further promotion to the post of SDE?
10. So far as the request of the respondents to include their name cannot be found fault as they are in the cadre of JTOs, their names has to be figured in the eligibility list if they have fulfilled the eligibility criteria 13 in terms of the seniority. But the question is whether they are entitled for promotion in respect of the vacancy which had arisen in the year 2001-2002 or for the future years, it all depends upon the vacancies which would arise under the reservation category. Therefore, we are of the view that by clarifying the order of the Tribunal, we can put an end to the dispute cropped up between the petitioners and the respondents.
11. When the petitioners admit that they are working as JTOs after getting promotion from the post of TTA depending upon the vacancy arisen under different recruitment order considering the fulfillment of the eligibility criteria on the seniority of the respondent has to be assigned. Therefore, there cannot be any difficulty for the writ petitioners to consider their case of the respondents as directed by the Tribunal. So far as the finding of the Tribunal with regard to holding Annexure-R1 as illegal and factually incorrect is 14 concerned, the department need not take it very seriously because what is required to be considered by the department is to assign the seniority based on the seniority of all the respondents.
12. With the above observations, the writ petitions are disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JJ