ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) APPELLANT calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur affirming the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'CAT') holding that the appellant's claim of seniority vis-a-vis that of one Ram Rao Bhosley was untenable. Factual position is undisputed and relates to appellant's seniority vis-a-vis others. Though grievance was made in the Original Application before the CAT and the High Court that his seniority was affected by placing juniors above him, no such junior was impleaded either before CAT or the High Court and in the present appeal. By way of illustration, it has been pointed out that the aforesaid Ram Rao Bhosley was one such instance. It was appellant's stand that when he passed the departmental examination, the Government should have decided the date from which he was to be confirmed. As no such decision has been taken and no order has been passed his placement in the Gradation list is without any rational basis. Appellant was appointed on 1.1.1989 on probation and original probation period ended on 1.5.1991. There was extension of the period of probation by one year which ended on 1.5.1992. Even during the extended period of probation the appellant did not succeed in the departmental examination and only on 22.7.1992 he passed the departmental examination. The date of confirmation was accordingly taken to be 23.7.1992. The appellant made a grievance that those persons who had passed the departmental examination within the extended period of one year were placed higher in the seniority list of 2002 by fixing their notional date of confirmation on the day the original period of probation was over. According to the appellant such fixation of seniority was contrary to law. The CAT did not accept the plea by placing reliance on judgment of this Court in M.P. Chandoria v. State of M.P. and Ors. and State of M.P. v. Ramkinkar Gupta and Ors. The CAT held that these decisions did not support the stand taken by the appellant and, in fact, substantiated State's case that only from the date an employee passes the departmental examination (if it is after probation period), the confirmation takes places.
(3.) IN support of the appeal, Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel submitted that the view taken by the CAT and the High Court was not correct in view of what has been stated by this Court in M.P. Chandoria and Ramkinkar Gupta cases (supra). With reference to the factual details of Ram Rao Bhosley, it was submitted that though he passed the departmental examination on 29.1.1993 after his initial appointment on 7.5.1990, he was placed senior to the appellant in the Gradation list. This was submitted to be not justified both in fact and in law. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the judgment of CAT and the High Court.;