Union Of India & Ors vs N.Y. Apte & Ors on 4 August, 1998
They would also like to urge at equating posts on the basis of longer
experience in lower post is not irrational or bad and is well within the domain of
the rule making authority as ordered vide Union of India v. N.Y.Apte[(1998) 6
SCC 741]. The first point we have to clear is that the applicant does not have any
right to claim precedence over the 5 th respondent. She has 5 years less service,
is not a graduate and she has only 2 years and 5 months service in the category
of post which is 2 levels below the CAO and that her promotion to the level of
Administrative Officer itself is only with a certain measure of generosity since she
was not qualified to hold that post. The only point in her favour is that apparently
she has all along been in the administrative side whereas the 5 th respondent is
from the public relations side. The 5 th respondent has been chosen after following
the due process through DPC which has also been subsequently approved by
the governing body of the respondent organisation which is the competent
authority for ordering promotions to the Group-A posts. The only lacuna we find
in the promotion given to the 5 th respondent is that there is no evidence either in
the DPC proceedings or otherwise regarding the merger of the two streams of
public relations and the administration. The Cadre and Recruitment rules
prescribe 12 years combined service as AO/AAO only with the GP of
Rs.6600/4600. No doubt the 5 th respondent has combined service of two months
short of 12 years in the GP 4600/5400(not GP 6600 as per the C&R Rules).
15 OA.No.170/00185/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
However, he has not been an Administrative Officer and going strictly by the
C&R Rules, he should not have been promoted as CAO unless the two streams
had been merged as per the rules with the approval of the governing body. The
respondents themselves state that since they could not promote him as CPRO
which is pending with the Finance Ministry, they have promoted him as CAO.
This displays a touch of bias on the part of the respondents in promoting the 5 th
respondent as CAO. We, therefore, direct the respondents to keep Annexure-A8
in abeyance till such time they are able to regularise the appointment of the 5 th
respondent as CAO. We are not aware whether there is any provision in the C&R
Rules which will enable them to do so. However, since the 5 th respondent has
been officiating in the said post with effect from September 2018 and the same
has also been approved by the governing body of the respondents, it is up to
them to regularise the appointment which can only be deemed to be irregular as
per the current Cadre & Recruitment Rules. However, this does not help the
applicant. Accordingly, we are dismissing the OA since the applicant does not
have any better claim for being appointed as CAO and in fact she does not have
even the required minimum service for promotion which has been given to her in
September 2018.