Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Relevant paras of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-

“17. ….................In accordance with the prescribed procedure for preparation of eligibility list, notified by the Government on 28.6.1996, the Departmental Promotion Committee has to prepare CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.
separate lists for each year of recruitment in the feeder category. In other words, if in 1958, the Departmental Promotion Committee has to prepare separate lists for each year of recruitment in the feeder category. In other words, if in 1958, the Departmental Promotion Committee is recommending people for promotion to Class II, then all the eligible candidates who had passed the departmental examination and were recruited in the year 1951 and so on and so forth. Once, separate lists are prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee of the officers recruited indifferent recruitment years in the feeder category and the criterion for promotion being seniority-cum- fitness, then it would create no problem in promoting the officers concerned. As to the inter se position of the officials belonging to the same year of recruitment in the feeder category, the procedure to be adopted has been indicted in para (999) of the memorandum dated 28.6.1966. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995 has rightly been decided in interpreting the relevant provisions of the Recruitment Rules read with the procedure prescribed under the memorandum dated 28.6.1966. We, however, make it clear that the persons who have already got the benefit like Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan by virtue of the judgments in their favour, will not suffer and their promotion already made will not be affected by this judgment of ours.
19........... We have also indicated that the promotions already effected pursuant tot e judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which was upheld by this Court by dismissing the special leave petition filed by the Union of India, will nto be altered in any manner. This being the position and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in favour of Parmanand Lal having attained finality, he having received the benefit of the said judgment and having been promoted, could not have been reverted because of some later judgments and directions given either the tribunals or by this Court.” (emphasis added)
21. Having regard to the above observations and clarification we have no doubt that such of the applicants whose claim to seniority and consequent promotion on the basis of the principles laid down in the Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Parmanand Lal Case have been upheld or recognised by the Court or the Tribunal by judgment and order which have attained finality will not be adversely affected by CA No. 4389 of 2010 ETC.

“21. We, therefore, direct that the respondents shall rearrange the seniority in terms of the principles laid down in Parmanand Lal case restoring their earlier position and shall not put any employee over and above the present petitioners on the basis of the seniority in service in the entry year, more particularly S/Shri Belani, Biradar and Kulkarni shall not be put over and above the petitioners herein. This shall be done within 8 weeks from the date of this judgment.”