Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
J Gowthaman vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 9 June, 2025
1 OA 310/00654/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00654/2019
Dated Monday, the 9th day of June, Two Thousand and Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)
&
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, Member (A)
J. Gowthaman
S/o S.T. Jayaraman
No. 10/7, BCG Staff Quarters
Sardar Patel Road, Guindy
Chennai 600 032. .... Applicant
By Advocate M/s. J. Kamaraj
Vs.
Union of India represented by
The Director
BCG Vaccine Laboratory
Guindy, Chennai 600 032. ... Respondent
By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC
2 OA 310/00654/2019
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member(J)) In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
"a) Call for the records pertaining to the office memorandum dated 28.09.2018 with reference No. A.12021/01/2014-Admn.
and quash the same and consequently issue a direction directing the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of Mechanic on regular basis with all consequential benefits and
b) Pass such other orders or directions as this Tribunal think fit in the circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
The applicant has been serving as a Workshop Khalasi under the 1st respondent since 06.06.1992 and was confirmed in the post on 11.10.1995. A charge memo was issued on 22.11.2003 alleging that his appointment was irregular, as his name was not sponsored through the employment exchange and he was over-aged at the time of appointment. As a result, his appointment was cancelled through Letter No. A.31014/1/2007, but he was later reconfirmed by order dated 18.03.2011 under the same reference. The applicant submitted representations on 17.09.2012 and 22.04.2012, requesting promotion to the post of Mechanic or Technician, but no action was taken. Eventually, on 05.08.2014, the respondent rejected his request for promotion through an official order. In the meantime, his junior, K.K. Joseph, was promoted to Mechanic in 2006, and
3 OA 310/00654/2019 another colleague, Narayanan, was promoted from Khalasi to Technician. Despite this, the applicant continued to submit multiple representations on 23.08.2017, 17.10.2017, 05.07.2018, and 04.09.2018 and including appeals to the Secretary, Ministry of Family Welfare, regarding the denial of promotion. He claims that he was denied promotion due to pending departmental proceedings, which were eventually dropped, yet he was still not considered. The respondent now cites new recruitment rules as the reason for refusing his promotion to Mechanic on a regular basis. Hence, this Original Application is filed seeking the above relief.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the issue is no more res integra and the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal dated 07.04.2025 in OA 646 of 2019 in the case of J. Dhandapani Vs UOI & Ors.
4. When the same was put forth before the learned counsel for the applicant he could not controvert the same and relied on the grounds filed in the present OA.
5. We have heard both the parties at length, perused the pleadings and citation cited by the parties.
4 OA 310/00654/2019
6. We find that the issue which is raised before us is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in OA 654/2019 and the relevant portion of the same is extracted below:
"5.We find from the Recruitment Rules that Khalasi is the feeder cadre for Mechanic. However for promotion from Khalasi to Mechanic the qualification required is ITI in Fitter or Electrical or Electronic grade with 3 years regular service. The applicant does not have the said qualification but has ITI in Refrigeration and Air-conditioning which does not make him eligible for promotion in terms of the qualifications required by the Recruitment Rules. The junior with whom the applicant is comparing himself has the requisite qualification having ITI in Electrician trade and therefore qualified for the promotion. It was argued before us that on the date of vacancy and as per the Recruitment Rules prevalent then, the applicant was eligible for promotion and should have been considered. The said argument does not help the applicant as it is now settled principle that the Recruitment Rules on the date of consideration are the relevant Recruitment Rules and not the Recruitment Rules that existed at the time when the vacancy arose. It has also been argued by the applicant that in OA 1616/2014 before the CAT Madras Bench the respondents had in their reply mentioned that the case of the applicant will be considered when vacancy arise and if the applicant is otherwise found suitable. The relevant portion of the order is extracted -
"10. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents and perused the pleadings. It is not in dispute that the applicant's juniors had been promoted to the post of Technician and Mechanic on different dates. However, it is clear that the contention of the applicant that he was overlooked for promotion only for the reason of pendency of disciplinary proceedings is not correct. His case had been fully considered at the relevant time by the DPC which had recorded its findings and duly assessed him as 'Unfit' for promotion. In the light of this decision, the question promotion of the 5 OA 310/00654/2019 applicant w.e.f. the date on which his junior had been granted promotion did not arise. It is stated in the impugned order as well as in the reply to this OA that the representation of the applicant would be considered for promotion to the post of Mechanic for which Khalasi (Workshop) is the feeder post as and when a vacancy arises, if he is otherwise found suitable. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order."
6. During arguments it was submitted by the applicant that in terms of the said decision he has to be given a post as and when the vacancy arises if he is otherwise found suitable. On a query from the Bench, it was submitted that suitability and eligibility are two different aspects and therefore the applicant is to be considered as satisfying eligibility for promotion to the post of Mechanic. We fail to appreciate the logic of the applicant. The respondents had only submitted that when vacancy arises and if the candidate is otherwise found suitable, he would be considered for promotion. In the case of the applicant, he is found ineligible in terms of the new Recruitment Rules which are in force on the date of consideration and therefore the submission of the Respondents before the CAT in OA 1616/2014 do not help the case of the applicant.
7. For the above reasons we do not find any merit in the OA and accordingly the OA is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs."
7. In the above circumstances, we find that the OA is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Sangam Narain Srivastava) (M. Swaminathan)
Member (A) Member (J)
09.06.2025
AS