Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
M S Subash vs M/O Defence on 8 September, 2023
1
OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00856/2019
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
M.S. Subash,
S/o M. Sadashivan,
Aged 42 years,
Working as Admn. Assistant 'B',
GTRE. C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560 093. ..Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar)
Vs.
1.Union of India represented by
Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, DHQ PO,
New Delhi-110 011.
2. The Chairman,
Defence Research and Development Organisation,
Ministry of Defence, Directorate of Personnel,
DRDO Bhavan, New Delhi-110 011.
3. The Director,
Gas Turbine Research Establishment,
Ministry of Defence,
Post Box No.9302,
C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560 093. ....Respondents
(By N. Amaresh, Sr. Panel Counsel for Respondents)
2
OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
a) To quash the impugned communications bearing Ref No.GTRE/ADMIN/GRC/2019 dated 24.4.2019 (Annexure A-7), vide which the grievance dated 11..2019 seeking promotion to Admn.
Assistant 'A' w.e.f. 1.1.2007 and subsequent promotion as Admn. Assistant 'B' from 1.1.2012 instead of 1.1.2013 and further promotion to Senior Admn. Assistant in the year 2018/2019 has been rejected.
b) To quash Ref. No. GTRE/ADMIN/DPC/017 dated 11.6.2019 (Annexure A-13) passed by third respondent, vide which his request for promotion from Admn. Assistant 'B' to Senior Admn. Assistant, has been rejected.
c) Direct the respondents to treat the date of promotion of the applicant as Admn. Assistant 'B' from 1.1.2012 as was done in the case of employees of LRDE pursuant to review DPC held after disposal of the OA by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal and further direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion by fixing the residency period as five years.
d) OR in the alternative direct the respondents to give a one-time relaxation for the applicability of revised residence period of 10 years 3 OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench in the case of the applicant and treating it to be five years to consider the case of the applicant for further promotion.
e) Grant such other relief/s as this Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
a) The applicant joined service as Security Attendant on 14.5.2001. As per SRO 10E of 1998 recruitment of Admn. Assistant A (Group C) is 90% by direct recruitment, 5% by promotion on selection cum seniority on qualifying LDCE amongst Group 'D' employee and remaining 5% by promotion on the basis of selection cum seniority.
b) The applicant was promoted as Admin. Assistant 'A' on 30.3.2007 under selection cum seniority from the 5% reserved posts for Group 'D' employees. Four persons appeared for Limited Department Competitive Examination (LDCE' for short) and pursuant to the publication of results all the four persons were given promotion with effect from 30.3.2007. Two persons were granted promotion on the basis of performance in the LDCE. The applicant and another person were promoted under selection cum seniority quota from Group 'D'.
c) The applicant and the three others were also promoted to the post of Admn. Assistant 'B' with effect from 1.1.2013 which is the post where the applicant is presently working.4
OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
d) The process for recruitment for the post of Admn. Assistant 'A' commenced in 2006 itself for the four vacancies referred to above and the above four vacancies also arose in the year 2006. As per the model calendar issued by DOPT in No.22011/9/98-Est(D) dated 8.9.1998, it was incumbent upon the respondents to follow the model calendar in accordance with the time limit prescribed in the said OM. The respondents have failed to adhere to the time frame fixed by the DOPT in Annexure A-1. It may also be stated here that various units/laboratories across the country follow the SROs and have recruited for posts of Admn. Assistant 'A' in their respective laboratories/units.
e) Some of the Admn. Assistants 'A' working in DRDO Headquarters at New Delhi approached the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1846/2012 along with MA No.1531/2012 as the respondents therein had not held the DPC which was due in 2009-10. The applicants in the said OA were aggrieved because of the fact since the DPC was not held in time and they were not promoted in time, but were promoted later. This late promotion had adversely affected their chances for next promotion as the residency period was raised from 5 years to 8 years. The said OA came to be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicants therein treating the residency period as five years and not eight years, by conducting a review DPC and if otherwise found suitable they should be granted the promotion. 5
OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
f) Pursuant to the order of Principal Bench in the aforesaid OA, the second respondent has instructed to hold review DPCs and accordingly the LRDE, Bangalore, has reviewed the promotions from 29.3.2010 onwards for promotion from Admn. Asst. 'A' to Admn. Asst. 'B'. The recommendations of such Review DPC was communicated by 3rd respondent on 6.9.2017 and a copy of the said communication along with the recommendation of the DPC is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-3.
g) As per recommendations dated 29.8.2017, the promotion date of the applicant was revised from original date of 1.1.2014 to 1.1.2013. The case of the applicant and others were being considered under DPC II for 2012. It can be seen from this letter that persons whose cases were considered under DPC II - for 2012 have been given effective date of promotion from 1.1.2012. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled for effective date of promotion from 1.1.2012.
h) The effective date of promotion for the applicant from 1.1.2012 was denied due to the reason that there was a shortfall of three months residency period. This three month short fall was solely on account of the fact that the DPC was conducted in 2007 though the vacancies were available in 2006 itself and the applicant was promoted only on 30.3.2007. Had the DPC been conducted in 2006 itself the applicant would have got the promotion from 1.1.2007.
i) The applicant did not question this anomaly for the reason that earlier a five year residency was prescribed as per SRO for promotion to the 6 OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench post of Senior Admn. Assistant. The said SRO was amended vide amendment dated 10.11.2012 and the residency period was enhanced to 10 years for those persons who were holding the post of Admn. Assistant 'B' on 10.11.2012.
j) The respondents granted promotions to persons who got revised date of promotion as Admn. Asst. 'B' as on 1.1.2012 by virtue of DPC 2018 and 2019. The applicant herein and other three persons who got the revised date as 1.1.2013 were denied the said promotion solely because of the reason that there was a short fall of three months in their promotion pursuant to DPC 2007. The applicant submitted his representation dated 11.4.2019. Subsequently, the third respondent sent his reply on 24.4.2019 merely reiterating that as the date of promotion of applicant is 1.1.2013 his case could not be considered for DPC 2019 and it will be considered as and when he becomes eligible.
k) The applicant and other similarly situated persons had been approaching the respondents in the matter of one time relaxation in respect of their cases in regard to residence period from 10 to 5 years because it was not their fault, but due to delay in constitution of DPC which resulted in their getting promotion with a delay of three months which ultimately resulted in adversely affecting their chances for promotion because of enhancement of residency period from 5 years to 10 years for those persons who have been promoted after 1.1.2012. Third respondent took up the matter with the second respondent by 7 OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench highlighting the facts and requesting for consideration of the cases of the applicant and other three persons.
l) Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA.No.125/2010, the question that was decided was akin to the facts that arise in the present case. The operative portion of the order of the Bench is as under:
"In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the applicant should not suffer for the delay in convening the DPC. Therefore, we declare that the applicant having found fit for promotion as UDC by the DPC, he has to be regularised notionally with effect from the date of occurrence of the second vacancy in 1997. We direct the respondents to do so, at the earliest, so that he becomes eligible for consideration for promotion to ASO and his name is included in the list to be placed before the duly constituted DPC for recommendation."
m) The facts of the present case are similar to the case before the Ernakulam Bench. In the present case also there was delay in convening of the DPC in the year 2006 when the vacancies became available. Had the DPC been convened in 2006 itself, the selection would have been over in time and the applicant would have got his promotion from 1.1.2007 and, thus, would have become eligible for next promotion in the year 2012, which he would have got after the review DPC recommended promotions to be antedated. If that had happened, the applicant's promotion would have been from 1.1.2012 and, therefore, the enhanced residency period would not have become applicable in the case of the applicant.
8
OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The applicant was appointed as Security Attendant 'A' (erstwhile Group D) in GTRE on 14.05.2001 on Direct Recruitment basis in the scale of Pay of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200. The next higher grade of Security Attendant 'A' is Security Attendant 'B' in the scale of Pay of Rs.2610-60-2910-65-3300-70-4000 as per SRO 119 dated 29.10.2005.
b) On 10.1.2007 GTRE invited applications from among the Group 'D' employees with 5 years regular service in the Establishment and possessing the qualification prescribed for Direct Recruitment for two posts each of Admin Assistant 'A' (AA 'A') to be filled by promotion and by Limited Departmental Examination respectively as per the provisions contained in SRO 10E of 1998.
c) As per the said SRO, method of recruitment of Admin Assistant 'A' is 90% by Direct Recruitment, 5% by promotion on selection cum seniority subject to qualifying Limited Departmental Examination and the rest 5% by promotion on the basis of selection cum seniority.
Notification for promotion was issued in January 2007 to extend opportunities to maximum number of employees completing 5 years of service as on 31.12.2006 for promotion to Admin Assistant 'A' on selection cum seniority from among the erstwhile Group 'D' employees (Security Attendant, Office Attendant, ALS A, Medical Attendant etc.). After conduct of typing skill test, recommendation/selection of 9 OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench candidates by the Board of officers was put up to duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee -III (DPC-III) for consideration.
d) The DPC was conducted for consideration and recommendation of selected candidates for the post of Admin Assistant 'A' after perusal of typing skill test results, vigilance clearance certificates, integrity/assessment report, Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and service records. Two candidates, including the applicant, were declared as promoted to Admin Assistant 'A' by Selection-cum-Seniority from 30.03.2007. Subsequently, on the recommendation of Bangalore Zonal DPC-II, the applicant was promoted to the post of Admin Asst. 'B' (AA 'B') from 1.1.2014.
e) Bangalore DPC zone held review DPC for reviewing DPC-II held for the years 2010-2017 to consider promotions from AA 'A' to AA 'B' as per the instruction from the Competent Authority following a court case and on the recommendation of the Zonal Review DPC-II, the applicant was promoted to AA 'B' w.e.f. 1.1.2013 instead of the original date of promotion of 1.1.2014 by granting one time relaxation in residency period of 5 years against the prescribed minimum period of 8 years for promotion from AA 'A' to AA 'B'. The applicant accepted his promotion as AA 'A' on 30.03.2007 and AA 'B' on 01.01.2013 without raising any complaints and discontent.
f) After a lapse of 12 years from the date of inter-grade promotion to AA 'A', he has raised the issue of his said promotion from retrospective 10 OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench effect and subsequent promotions to AA 'B' w.e.f. 2012 and to Sr. Admin Asst. w.e.f.2018/2019.
g) In the review DPC II held on 29th Aug 2017, the DPC II for the year was reviewed and the eligible candidates who had completed the minimum residency period of 05 years as on 01st Jan 2012 were considered and promoted with effect from 01st Jan 2012. Since, the applicant was promoted to the grade of Admin Assistant 'A' on 30th March 2007, he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of 05 years for promotion to the grade of Admn. Assistant 'B' as on 01.01.2012, thereby making him ineligible to be recommended for promotion to the grade of Admn. Assistant 'B' on 01.1.2012.
h) The shortfall of 3 months in the promotion from erstwhile Group 'D' to AA 'A' through selection-cum-seniority on 30.3.2007 cannot be attributed for delay in further promotions. In terms of the then prevailing SRO No.59 dated 27.7.2011, the residency period for promotion from Admin. Assistant 'A' to the grade of Admin. Assistant 'B' is 08 (eight) years which had been relaxed/reduced to 05 (five) years for the persons holding the post of Admin Assistant 'A' as on 23.12.2013. The applicant was promoted to the post of Admin. Assistant 'B' with effect from 1.1.2014, in terms of SRO 65 dated 11.09.2013. In the Zonal Review DPC-II held on 29.8.2017, the date of promotion of the applicant to the post of Admin Assistant 'B' was reviewed and re-fixed to 1.1.2013. Relaxation in residency period for promotion to Admin. Assistant 'B' was extended to the applicant twice 11 OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
- once in terms of SRO 65 dated 11.09.2013 and second at the time of Review DPC-II held on 29.8.2017. Without relaxation/reduction of residency period, the applicant would have been eligible/considered for promotion to Admin. Assistant 'B' only after completion of normal residency period of 8 years i.e. in the year 2016 subject to availability/allocation of vacancy. Therefore, the claim of the applicant that he was eligible for promotion to Admin Assistant 'B' in the year 2012 is incorrect.
4. In the rejoinder to the reply, the applicant has pleaded as follows:
a) The applicant was promoted with effect from 1.1.2013 instead of 1.1.2012 by the review DPC held on 29.08.2017. The effect of this is loss of 5 years for the career progression of the applicant, since as per the Recruitment Rule Amended on 10.11.2012; wherein, a person holding the post upto 10.11.2012 will be eligible for next promotion on completion of 5 years and persons holding the post after 10.11.2012 will become eligible only on completion of 10 years.
b) The applicant is short by 3 months of residency period for consideration of his promotion as Admin. Assistant 'B' with effect from 1.1.2012. This shortfall is due to the administrative delay of conducting DPC by the Respondent No.3 to the post of Admin. Assistant 'A' in the year 2006. The post was existing in the beginning of the year 2006 itself and they waited for more candidates to be eligible. The last person who was becoming eligible was Shri. Mukundan K, who was eligible by September 2006. To cover-up their motive to accommodate this 12 OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench single person, they further delayed the DPC upto March 2007. Finally, the said Mukundan K could not be promoted due to lack of eligibility.
c) Another sister office of Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) conducted the DPC for the year 2006 in time and promoted two persons namely Shri Bikramjith Ghosh and Shri Satish. M to the next higher post of Admin. Assistant 'A' from Group 'D' post, with effect from 23.12.2006; whereas both these persons stand junior to the applicant with respect to their initial date of appointment. Had the DPC been held in time in GTRE, by the Respondent No.3, the applicant would have retained his seniority.
d) The claim of the applicant to antedate his promotion, notionally, at least from 1.1.2007 was rejected by the Respondent No.3, even though the delay of DPC was fully attributable to Respondent No.3.
5. The respondents have filed their additional reply and they have averred as follows:
a) DPC-III for holding promotion to AA 'A' through selection cum seniority from among the eligible Group 'D' employees is not held every year on regular basis, as it is limited to a vacancy of 5% and, therefore, not subject to schedules of model calendar. The subject promotion process under DPC was conducted based on pragmatic approach and ground reality. Promotion from Group 'D' to Group 'C' post cannot be construed as regular DPC for promotion within hierarchy of posts of same grade which is usually held every year. 13
OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench Regular DPC-III 2007 was in fact held for promotion within Group 'D' posts in conformity of model calendar based on temporary allocation of posts in DPC-III for the year 2007 by R&D Headquarters. Therefore, schedule of inter-grade promotion from erstwhile Group 'D' to Group 'C' is not related to that of schedules of model calendar for holding regular DPC.
b) The applicant was promoted to AA 'B' from 1.1.2014. Subsequently Bangalore DPC zone held review DPC for reviewing DPC-II held for the years 2010-2017 to consider promotions from AA 'A' to AA 'B' as per the instructions from the Competent Authority. Based on the recommendation of the Zonal Review DPC-II, he was promoted to AA 'B' w.e.f.1.1.2013 instead of the original date of promotion of 1.1.2014 by granting one time relaxation in residency period of 5 years against prescribed minimum period of 8 years for promotion from AA 'A' to AA 'B'. The above review DPC-II for the year 2010-2017 were conducted as per orders of Hon'ble CAT(PB) New Delhi order dated 24th August 2016 in OA No.1846/2012 filed by Shri Sharvan Kumar & Ors Vs GOl & Ors.
c) The applicant was promoted to the grade of Admin. Assistant 'A' on 30.3.2007. Hence, he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of 05 years for promotion to the grade of Admin Assistant 'B' as on 01.1.2012, thereby making him ineligible to be recommended for promotion to the grade of Admin Assistant 'B' on 01.1.2012.
14
OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
7. The applicant in the present case has prayed for retrospective promotion from Security Attendant to the post of Administrative Assistant 'A' which is Group 'C' post w.e.f. 1.1.2007. His promotion to the post of Administrative Assistant 'A' was granted against the 5% quota on 30.3.2007. The applicant was further promoted as Admin. Assistant 'B' on 01.1.2014. However, subsequently, he was promoted as Admin. Assistant 'B' w.e.f. 01.1.2013 retrospectively by granting him one time relaxation in the residence period of 5 years against the prescribed period of 8 years for promotion from Admin. Assistant 'A' to Admin. Assistant 'B'.
8. The applicant has prayed for retrospective promotion as Admin. Assistant 'B' w.e.f 01.1.2012 instead of 01.1.2013. His claim for retrospective promotion is based on his contention that his promotion to the post of Admin. Assistant 'A', which is the feeder cadre for the post of Admin. Assistant 'B', on 30.3.2007, had been delayed for no fault of his. He has contended that he was eligible for promotion after completing 5 years of service on 11.5.2006, his promotion was w.e.f. 30.3.2007 due to delay in DPC.
9. The respondents have stated that notification for promotion to the post of Admin. Assistant 'A' was issued in January 2007 only to extend opportunities to maximum number of employees completing 5 years of service as on 31.12.2006. Subsequently, after completing the necessary process of typing skill tests, vigilance clearances, integrity assessment 15 OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench reports etc., the DPC was constituted for consideration and recommendation of selected candidates after perusal of typing skill test results, vigilance clearance certificates, integrity/assessment report, ACRs and service records. The applicant had also appeared in the written test of Limited Departmental Examination. However, the applicant was promoted on Selection-cum-seniority basis on 30.3.2007. Hence, the respondents have contended that there was no delay in promoting the applicant to the post of Admin. Assistant 'A'.
10. The applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the present OA on 30.6.2019, seeking to treat his promotion granted on 30.3.2007 to be retrospectively backdated to 1.1.2007. He had accepted his promotion on 30.3.2007 without any protest at that time. He had also been promoted to Admin. Assistant 'B' on 1.1.2014. This was backdated w.e.f. 1.1.2013 after granting one time relaxation in residency period from 8 years to 5 years. The applicant has accepted his promotion as Admin. Assistant 'A' on 30.3.2007 and his promotion as Admin. Assistant 'B' on 1.1.2013, without raising any complaint what so ever in the matter. Now, after a lapse of more than 12 years from the date of these promotions granted to him on 30.3.2007, he is praying for grant of retrospective promotion to Admin. Assistant 'A' w.e.f. 1.1.2007 instead of 30.3.2007, as well his subsequent promotion to Admin. Assistant 'B' w.e.f. 1.1.2012 instead of 1.1.2013.
11. The applicant has further argued that if his promotion is deemed to be from 1.1.2012, he would be eligible for consideration for further promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant from 2018/2019. The applicant has 16 OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench further stated that since his date of promotion to the post of Admin. Assistant 'B' is 1.1.2013 and the eligibility for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant has been enhanced from 5 years to 10 years vide notification dated 22.10.2012, he would be deprived of opportunity of consideration to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant Grade-I, since he was holding the post of Admin. Assistant 'B' on 22.10.2012 and will be completing minimum eligibility of 5 years only on 1.1.2018.
12. A perusal of the Recruitment Rules notified under SRO 97 dated 22.10.2012 indicate the following provisions for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant from the post of Admin. Assistant 'B':
"Promotion: Administrative Assistant 'B' in the scale of pay of Rs.5200- 20200 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 in PB-I with ten years regular service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on regular basis. Note.1: The eligibility service for consideration for promotion for the existing incumbent holding the post of Admin. Assistant 'B' on the date of notification of this rule shall be five years."
13. The applicant is praying to get the date of his promotion to the post of Admn. Assistant 'B' fixed retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.2012 instead of 1.1.2013, so as to enable him to get the benefit of Note-I under these RRs, in order to become eligible for further promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant in 5 years instead of the revised minimum eligibility period of ten years.
14. It is however noted that the applicant had in fact been promoted to the post of Admn Assistant 'B' on 1.1.2014. This was changed to 1.1.2013 based on the recommendation of the Zonal Review DPC II following a Court 17 OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench order. It is also noticed that the applicant had accepted his promotion as Admn. Assistant 'A' on 30.3.2007 and Admn. Assistant 'B' on 1.1.2013 without raising any objection at that point of time.
15. The present application seeking for grant of retrospective promotion to the post of Admn. Assistant 'A' w.e.f. 1.1.2007 instead of 30.3.2007, and to the post of Admn. Assistant 'B' w.e.f. 1.1.2012 instead of 1.1.2013 is severely hit by enormous delay and laches and cannot be accepted on this ground alone.
16. During the course of hearing, the applicant raised another contention citing the instance of promotion of one Ms. Sheela Babu, who had apparently been promoted as Senior Admn. Assistant on 01.9.2018, although her date of appointment as Admn. Assistant 'B' was 1.1.2013, as in the case of the applicant. The respondents were directed to clarify the matter with regard to the promotion of Ms. Sheela Babu, as Senior Admn. Assistant on 1.9.2018 after completion of only 5 years of service as Admn. Assistant 'B', instead of the revised eligibility period of ten years, since her date of appointment as Admn. Assistant 'B' was 1.1.2013.
17. The respondents submitted their clarification vide letter dated 13.1.2013 and intimated that:
"Ms. Sheela Babu who was earlier reflected to be promoted to the post of Sr. Admn. Asst. on 1st September 2018, has actually/effectively been promoted to the post of Sr. Admn. Asst. for the DPC year 2023 as per letter No. LRDE/10072/5/CDPC-II/Corr/Adm dated 27 Dec. 2022 i.e., 18 OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench after completion of 10 years of residency period in the feeder grade as mandated vide RR."
18. From this clarification it is apparent that the based on the revised RR, the minimum residency period prescribed in the feeder grade for consideration for promotion to the post of Sr. Admn. Asst. is 10 years as per the Recruitment Rules notified by the respondents. The applicant would be eligible to be considered for promotion as per his turn, as per the Recruitment Rules notified for the purpose, after completing 10 years of regular service in the grade of Admn. Asst. 'B'.
19. The example cited by the applicant of one Ms. Sheela Babu is not at all relevant in the present case since she has been promoted after completing her residency period of ten years, with effect from 1.1.2023 vide orders dated 27th December 2022.
20. The respondents have further clarified through a memo dated 18.8.2023 that the seniority list of Admin and Allied Cadre as on 01.1.2023 has been modified through a Corrigendum issued on 27.2.2023 and the name of Ms. Sheela Babu has now been correctly placed in the seniority list. The Corrigendum issued by the respondents states as under:
"Reference this HQrs letter of even No. dated 28.03.2023 vide which Seniority Roll as on 01.02.2023 was published wherein it has been noted that the name of Smt. Sheela Babu, Sr. Admn. Assistant was reflected at two places i.e. Sl.No.128 and Sl.No.162 of the seniority list.19
OA.No.170/856/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
2. As per panel for the year 2023 for promotion to the grade of Sr. Admn. Assistant published vied LRDE letter No. LRDE/10072/5/CDPC-II/Corr/Adm dated 27.12.2022, the name of Smt. Sheela Babu has appeared at Sl.No.16 below Smt. Anita Chauhan and above Sl.No.18 Smt. Pooja.
3. Accordingly, the name of Smt. Sheela Babu has been positioned at Sl.No.162 of All India Seniority list of Sr. Admn. Assistant, vide this HQrs letter under reference.
4. In view of the above, entry at Sl.No.128 of the ibid Seniority list of Sr. Admn. Assistant, may be treated as deleted."
21. Keeping the above points in view, the OA lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
22. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/vmr/