State of Karnataka & Ors. etc. Vs. M.G. Nalappanaver & Ors. etc.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3437-39, 4125-27 of 1987.
WITH
(S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2540-42/88 & SLP (C) 3462-64/88)
WITH
(S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2540-42/88 & SLP (C) 3462-64/88)
Petitioner: State of Karnataka & Ors. etc.
Respondent: M.G. Nalappanaver & Ors. etc.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3437-39, 4125-27 of 1987.
WITH
(S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2540-42/88 & SLP (C) 3462-64/88)
WITH
(S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2540-42/88 & SLP (C) 3462-64/88)
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & MURARI MOHON DUTT,JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 05, 1988
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Seniority
Seniority – Redrawing of seniority list – Officers holding promotional post who in the event of redrawing of seniority list may be adversely affected to be allowed to continue in the higher post on ad hoc basis.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for parties in support and in opposition in this group of special leave petitions which are directed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal,Bangalore. We find no merit in the contentions raised in these petitions as the direction given by the Tribunal is on the basis of the decision of this Court in Gonnal Bhimappa’s case (1987 Suppl. Sec. 206) where a direction was given to prepare a fresh seniority list and we have been told that the same has already been circulated and objections have been invited with a view to finalising the list.
2. Dr. Y.S. Chitale, counsel appearing for the State concedes that the implementation of our decision in Bhimappa’s case required a total redrawing of seniority list and at this point of time it is difficult to say as to which particular officer will figure at which place in the seniority list. In that view of the matter, in principle, the Tribunal is right in directing that the entire process has to be redone.
3. Two questions which have been raised before us are:
(1) In regard to some of the officers holding promotional or higher posts who in the event of the seniority list being redrawn may be adversely affected, may be allowed to continue on their higher posts. Since it appears that the process of finalisation may take some time, there is no objection to allow these officers to continue in the higher posts on ad hoc basis. In case they are selected, certainly they shall continue in the higher posts and in case they are not selected, certainly they shall be pushed down from the promotional posts.
(2) The second point is in regard to the time required for redrawing the seniority list. In this regard the Tribunal has given time till 31st March, 1988 for redrawing seniority list. In case it is felt necessary that there should be extension of time the State is at liberty to approach the Tribunal for extension of time and we hope that the Tribunal will give necessary direction in that event. We express no opinion at present regarding the fresh seniority list.
4. Special leave petitions are disposed of accordingly.
1. Heard learned counsel for parties in support and in opposition in this group of special leave petitions which are directed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal,Bangalore. We find no merit in the contentions raised in these petitions as the direction given by the Tribunal is on the basis of the decision of this Court in Gonnal Bhimappa’s case (1987 Suppl. Sec. 206) where a direction was given to prepare a fresh seniority list and we have been told that the same has already been circulated and objections have been invited with a view to finalising the list.
2. Dr. Y.S. Chitale, counsel appearing for the State concedes that the implementation of our decision in Bhimappa’s case required a total redrawing of seniority list and at this point of time it is difficult to say as to which particular officer will figure at which place in the seniority list. In that view of the matter, in principle, the Tribunal is right in directing that the entire process has to be redone.
3. Two questions which have been raised before us are:
(1) In regard to some of the officers holding promotional or higher posts who in the event of the seniority list being redrawn may be adversely affected, may be allowed to continue on their higher posts. Since it appears that the process of finalisation may take some time, there is no objection to allow these officers to continue in the higher posts on ad hoc basis. In case they are selected, certainly they shall continue in the higher posts and in case they are not selected, certainly they shall be pushed down from the promotional posts.
(2) The second point is in regard to the time required for redrawing the seniority list. In this regard the Tribunal has given time till 31st March, 1988 for redrawing seniority list. In case it is felt necessary that there should be extension of time the State is at liberty to approach the Tribunal for extension of time and we hope that the Tribunal will give necessary direction in that event. We express no opinion at present regarding the fresh seniority list.
4. Special leave petitions are disposed of accordingly.
