Page 57 - TELEWAVE JUNE-2016

Com. – It is fact that the Department has informed Shri T Bennet and T V Mathews that they are not entitled to appear in the special supplementary exam as they have already been promoted against the vacancy year 1993-94 vide communication dated 17.07.2002. 05.02.2010 - CAT, ERK - OA 86/2009: Para 1. a. A clear mention was made in the said order that those who had qualified in the DQE prior to 1991 would all rank seniors to those who qualify after them in the DQE, for the purpose of promotion to the nd vacancies in the TES Group-B Cadre upto 22 July 1996. Para 1. b. LDCE 2000/2003 were held for the vacancies that had arisen during the years 1994-95, 1995-96 and nd up to 22 July 1996. Para 1. c. Two individuals who had already qualified in the earlier examination and promoted against the 1993-94 vacancies, it was mentioned that they having already been promoted, would not be permitted to participate in the examination to be conducted. Earlier too, there were certain individuals who were declared as ineligible to appear for the examination, presumably for the same reason. Para 22. When the competitive examination took place, the same was for a number of years together and as many as 147 individuals were successful. Of them some would have cleared the qualifying examination along with some of the applicants and some later. Nevertheless, there promotion in the wake of their success in the competitive examination has been much after the promotion of the applicants. This is the admitted fact. Para 23. Coming to the issue relating to seniority, evidently, the respondents tried to accommodate on the rd basis of merit in the slots of 1/3 quota for the previous years. Thus, a 1980 recruit, having passed the DQE in 1988, on passing in the LDCE seems to have been afforded seniority far ahead of the applicants who stood promoted much earlier. Para 24.3. It appears to us to be only proper that their seniority must be reckoned in the higher post with effect from the date when they are promoted to the said post after being successful in the LDCE and that they be given promotion from the retrospective date cannot arise. (This must be applicable to all our LDCEs.) Para 25. Though both the two-third quota by way of seniority and one-third quota by way of competitive examination fall under ‘promotion’ while considering fixation of seniority, the two are comparable to promotion and direct recruitment quota. Para 30. The 147 candidates whose seniority has been reflected in the impugned order qualified in the competitive examination in 2002 in which event, the settled seniority of the applicant who stood promoted long back cannot be unsettled. Perhaps it is for this reason that the Tribunal in its order in OA No. 1497/96 administered a caution that those who stood passed in the qualifying examination prior in point of time would all be senior to those who qualify subsequently. Para 31. The impugned seniority and the promotion order issued based on the same seniority are hereby quashed and set aside. 12.08.2011 - CAT, ERK - RA No. 29/2010 & 41/2010 in OA No. 86/2009: Para 23 (a). – RTI query on year of recruitment of 147 candidates revels: Beyond 20 numbers, all others were recruited in 1989 and thereafter. As per the rules, these could participate in the competitive examination only after completion of 5 years of their regular service which would mean that their turn would come only on or after1994. Thus, they cannot under any circumstances take under the competition quota, the position in any year anterior to 1994. Para 23 (b). – Again, the caution administered in order in OA No. 1497/96 that those who stood passed in the qualifying examination prior in point of time would all be senior to those who qualify subsequently nullifies this ground taken by the review applicants. 01.07.2013 - Kerala High Court - WP(C) 5406/2010 & 26226/2010, OP(CAT) 2941/2011 & 3019/2011. Para 11. The first petitioner (K S Hegde) in WP(C) 5406/2010, approached this Court with a contempt; being unsatisfied with the above (2007) seniority assigned, which was disposed of by (Kerala High CourtCCC No. 713/2007/Order 9.10.2007), holding that there is no contempt and relegating the petitioner to take appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum if he is aggrieved by the assignment of seniority. Para 12. TELEWAVE 57 JUNE-2016