Title- M.T.N.L v Mahindra Singh
Decided on: 04th October, 2023
+ W.P.(C) 12942/2006
Introduction
The present petition was filed for setting aside/quashing of the order given in O.A. NO. 3169/2003 on 10th of December 2004 and another order given in the Review petition bearing no. 99/2005 on 23rd of May, 2006 by Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, Under the Scope of Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution. The Court set aside both the orders upholding Telecom Engineering Service (Group ‘B’) Recruitment Rules 1981, that Respondent had not cleared the LDCE, he cannot claim promotion as a matter of right.
Facts of the case
In the year 1977, Respondent, Mahindra Singh was appointed to the position of JTO under the Telecommunication Department, Government of India. Later after two years, he was suspended on the 27th of April, 1979 following an order for his termination from the services on the 26th of September 1979, passed as per CCS (Temporary Services) Rules of 1965, Rule 5(1).
He filed a representation opposing the aforesaid order and then got re-employed on the 2nd of April, 1983.
A criminal complaint was also filed against him under section 409, 204, and 12 [Forgery and Misappropriation] Under IPC, an FIR was filed against him, and on 26th of June, 2001 he was acquitted of all the charges. Respondent then, in 2001, filed Original Application 3220/2001 in front of the Central Administrative Tribunal for Reinstatement following his date of Termination.
For the said suit order was passed in favor of Mahindra Singh, who condoned interruption of services b/w two of the appointments i.e. 22nd of June 1979 and 2nd of April allowing all consequential benefits.
In between there was an event where an application was called for the promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to Telecom Engineering, GRADE 1.
Mahindra Singh was also interested and hence applied for the same, but his application was rejected on 12th of December 1985 stating that he was not eligible for the same, Respondent again applied for the “Limited Departmental Competitive examination” in the years 1989, 1990 and also in 1991, but his application always got rejected on the ground that criminal case was pending against him.
Later in 2000, finally he was given a promotion.
However Respondent No. 1 complained that since he was reinstated effective in 1977, he was eligible for promotion in 1986, but his juniors were promoted after passing the LDCE, and he had been unfairly denied the chance to take the LDCEs each time, for which he could not be punished. Consequently, he prayed for the grant of promotion with effect from 1986 to O.A. No. 3169/2003.
His prayer was allowed by CAT through an order dated 10th of December 2004, and the Tribunal held that,
On careful consideration of the rival contentions, we are of the view that once the interruption between two appointments has been condoned and the applicant has been accorded all consequential benefits this period should be reckoned towards qualifying service as the applicant has subsequently qualified for the examination as earlier, he had been prevented by an illegal action of the respondents to participate in the selection process. However, on his acquittal from the criminal case he has a right to be considered for promotion from the date he acquired eligibility.”
Aggrieved by this order, the Respondents who are petitioners in this case, The Secretary of the Ministry of Communications and The Executive Director of MTNL, filed a Review Petition bearing No. 99/2005 but that also got dismissed on 23rd June 2006.
Courts Judgement and Analysis
The court observed that Respondent No. 1 was appointed in the year 1977 as JTO and his services were terminated in the year 1979. In the year 1983, he was re-employed as a fresh recruit vide Letter dated 02.04.1983 with all consequential benefits along with past service w.e.f. 02.04.1983. Vide O.A. No. 3220/2001, interruption between two appointments i.e., 2.06.1979 and 02.04.1983 was condoned with all consequential benefits. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 applied for appearing in LDCE, but he was not allowed against which, no representation or legal remedy was taken by respondent No. 1.
Court observed that respondent no. 1 was denied participate in LDCE for the first time in 1985 as he was freshly employed in 1983 and hadn’t fulfilled the requirement of continuous 5-year service for being eligible to give LDCE as per Telecom Engineering Service (Group ‘B’) Recruitment Rules 1981 and because he had a pending criminal case against him.
They highlighted that in early decisions CAT observed that since respondent No. 1 had subsequently qualified for the examination and was earlier prevented due to the illegal action of respondent No. 1 to participate in the selection process, he be considered for promotion w.e.f. 20.08.1986. However, respondent No. 1 herein has admittedly never taken the LDCE and, therefore, did not ever meet the criteria for his promotion in the 33-1/3 percent quota as per Telecom Engineering Service (Group ‘B’) Recruitment Rules 1981. Once, he has not cleared the LDCE, he cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. However, he became due for promotion w.e.f. 26.04.2000 as per the Rules and has been rightly granted his promotion. They upheld that CAT fell in error observing that respondent No. 1 had qualified for the requisite LDCE, in fact, he never qualified for this exam and quashed the previous orders given in O.A. No. 3169/2003 and Review W.P.(C) 12942/2006 Page 10 of 10 Petition bearing No. 99/2005 by observing that the respondent No. 1 has been granted the promotion correctly w.e.f. 26.04.2000.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
Click here to Read the Judgement
