Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The applicants claim is also opposed by Respondent No.4 in his reply. It has been pointed out by Respondent No.4 that in the year 1998 i.e. on 13.2.1998, a DPC was held for filing up of three vacant posts of Senior Horticultural Assistant and since the answering Respondent No.4 had completed only about three years of service, he was not considered for promotion to the said post although as per post based reservation roster, one post (point No.7 of the roster) was meant to be filled up by an SC candidate. It has further been submitted that the 7th point in the roster was meant to be filled up by a SC candidate and point for a ST candidate to which the applicant belongs was the sixth replacement i.e. 14th point. It has further been submitted by Respondent No.4 that as per OM dated 2.7.1997 regarding post based roster replacing vacancy based rosters which came into being pursuant to the Honble Supreme Courts direction in R.K.Sabharwals case, the existing appointments are required to be necessarily adjusted. Thus, pursuant to the same, five existing appointments to the post of Senior Horticultural Assistant, as existing on introduction of post based roster were required to be adjusted for the purposes of initial operation of post based roster. Even there remained a backlog for SC vacancy which was also noted by this Tribunal in its Order dated 22.9.2003 in OA No.343/2003. It has been pointed out that the respondent No.4 did not contest the claim of the applicant in the aforesaid OA for grant of 14th point in the roster by way of promotion as there was no conflict on this point with Respondent No.4. Nonetheless, the fact remains as to whether the Respondent No.4 was entitled to be promoted as against the 7th point in the post based roster on the same analogy as the applicant was entitled to be promoted against the 14th point being a ST candidate, which is neither being objected to by the official respondents nor by the applicant. The respondent No.4 having been appointed against 7th point, obviously be senior to the applicant, who was promoted against the SC post being 14th point in the post based roster. It has further been submitted by Respondent No.4 that though Shri H,.P.Verma was a SC candidate but he was appointed as an unreserved candidate to the post of Horticultural Assistant Grade-I in the year 1977 and was promoted to the post of Senior Horticultural Assistant as an unreserved candidate in the year 1986. In the seniority list of Senior Horticultural Assistant up to 28.2.1991, Shri H.P.Verma was rightly shown as unreserved candidate. Furthermore, on the date of replacement of vacancy based roaster to post based roster, Shri H.P.Verma had already stood promoted to the post of Assistant Superintending Horticultural in the year 1995. Thus, he was not in the cadre strength of Senior Horticultural Assistant on the relevant date and, therefore, he could not have been counted to have consumed the 7th point of post based roster in the cadre of Senior Horticultural Assistant. Furthermore, Respondent No.4 stood actually promoted much prior to the applicants promotion and, therefore, the applicants claim for seniority over and above the answering Respondent No.4 is not entertainable on any count including the instructions cited by the applicant. As a matter of fact, the applicant was promoted prospectively vide Order dated 3.2.2004 whereas the Respondent No.4 was promoted vide order dated 08.01.2003. The learned counsel for Respondent No.4 submitted that retrospective promotion is permissible in exceptional circumstances when there is some legal impediment in making promotion, like intervention by the Court as it has been held in Amarjeet Singh & Others Vs. Devi Ratan & Others (2010) 1 SCC 417. Reliance has also been placed on this by Shri Ajesh Luthra appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 in support of his contention that one who has been promoted from an earlier date is bound to be senior than the person who has been promoted from a later date. The learned counsel Shri Luthra referred to Para 34 of the judgment in this regard. Another case on which reliance has been placed by Shri Luthra is M.A.Khan Vs. Union of India & Another (OA No.2364/2008 decided by this Tribunal in November, 2009). In this case, the applicant deserved consideration for his promotion in the year 2003 but he has been promoted in the year 2007. It has been held in this case by this Tribunal that the respondents could have promoted him notionally but his consideration for promotion had to be from the year 2003 onwards.