Page 59 - TELEWAVE JUNE-2016

Para 42. This court found that there is no contempt and also negetived the contention that objections were not invited before the final list was published. What was stated by this Court while closing the contempt case was that, if at all, the petitioner has any grievance against the final list published on 13.02.2007, that would only give rise to a separate cause of action. Relying on the said observation, it is contended that, the department was approached, who re-cast the entire seniority. Whether the appropriate forum included the department, who published the final seniority list itself, is a moot question. Para 44. We do not see any reason to reopen the vacancies from 1990 onwards since the same were never the subject matter of litigation before any of the forums. Hence, there were valid appointments made to the vacancies prior to 1994 from the qualified hands which cannot be upset at this stage. Para 45. The Court notices Suraj Prakash Gupta v. State of J&K (2007)SCC 561 wherein it was held that “in service jurisprudence, a direct recruit can claim seniority only from the date of his regular appointment. He cannot claim seniority from a date when he was not borne in the service” Para 47. Merely because the LDCE was not held from 1989 that does not create a vested right in the 147 rd candidates to be assigned seniority in the 1/3 quota of LDCE from the year 1990 onwards. Hence, the 147 rd candidates ought to be considered for the 1/3 vacancies in 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 (up to 22.07.1996) according to their merit as also their eligibility to appear for the combined examination. Note: rd 149 candidates shall be utilizing the 1/3 vacancies of 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 (up to 22.07.1996) for their promotion. But, they must be assigned their seniority only from 18.02.2002 for 16 candidates, from 18.11.2002 for 06 candidates, from 13.04.2005 for 122 candidates and from 13.09.2006 for 03 candidates, the dates of their regular promotion. Two more candidates joined recently to make the list 149, must be assigned seniority from the date of their regular promotion only. (Refer SC directive at para 45 above and recent judgment of Mr. Sadasivan where BSNL was a party. Number of similar SC judgments are available. Rules does not permit retrospective seniority.) 1. DQE candidates were allowed seniority only from the date of their promotion irrespective of the creation of the vacancy. LDCE candidates must be allowed the same without any discrimination. Rule does not permit. Allotment of seniority to 149 group as above is the only feasible solution. 2. As per CAT ERK order of 01.05.1998 149 LDCE group shall be en-bloc junior to all JTOs qualified up to 1991. 3. Out of 149 LDCE group 5(five) ineligible seniors will prefer to retain their earlier seniority as already done by Mr. R C Khuntia. 6 to 67 the genuine LDCE group and will get seniority from the date of their joining. 68 to 149 are ineligibles as per CAT & H C ERK. An unique LDCE: 1. Examination was held in two installments. 2. Results were published in several small installments. 3. Promotions were also made in several installments. 4. Seniority lists were also changed several times, some times Punamlata heading the list next time R K Pradhan leading. 5. Senior ineligibles as well as junior ineligibles were allowed. 6. Examinations were held for some vacancy years and seniority was assigned for some other earlier years. 7. DoT was above all courts and very proactive to allow retrospective seniority to the group. Now, all are requested join hands to arrange seniority to (6 to 67) 62 persons only from 13.04.2005, the date of their DPC as directed by the Apex Court in several similar cases. TELEWAVE 59 JUNE-2016