- (1.) This appeal has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated August 3, 1995 in Original Application No. 54 of 1991. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows : The first appellant was recruited as an Office Clerk in the year 1979 and posted under Chief Personnel Officer, North Frontier Railway. He was promoted as Senior Clerk in 1981. The second appellant was recruited as Clerk Grade-II and was posted to work under the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, North Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati. He was promoted as Accounts Assistant on April 1, 1988. A notification was issued on August 12, 1984 to fill the post of Law Assistant and applications were invited from the serving railway employees possessing a Degree in Law and having rendered five years service. The appellants offered themselves as candidates and participated in the written test in which they were declared to have been successful. They also took viva voce examination. Out of nine candidates three candidates were promoted as Law Assistants and two more candidates were promoted on ad hoc basis. On January 30, 1987 a provisional seniority list of Law Assistants in grade Rs. 1600-2660/- was published and the names of the Law Assistants as stated above were shown. That position was repeated and the appellants claimed that they were also promoted to the post of Law Assistant on regular basis. This was reflected in the second seniority list published on February 22, 1989. The order promoting the appellants on August 2, 1988 was clarified to have been ad hoc promotion by the proceedings issued on July 23, 1990. The appellants represented against the modification of their promotions on ad hoc basis. The appellants were informed that their names were not included in the panel and, therefore, they could not be regularly promoted as Law Assistants and their representations made therefore were rejected. Thereafter in 1991 three Law Assistants were recruited from open market and a fresh notification was issued on March 7, 1991 for holding selection for the post of Law Assistant. At this stage the appellants approached the Tribunal.
(2.) In the original application before the Tribunal their claim for regularisation having been rejected, it was contended that the modification made by the proceedings dated July 30, 1990 modifying the promotion order dated August 2, 1988 was arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. It is contended by the appellants that the original order could not be modified after about two years; that they must be treated to have been regularly appointed Law Assistants; that they could not be deprived of the benefits thereof and that they cannot also be compelled to participate in the selection to be held subsequently. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the appellants were not selected for promotion which is a requirement under the relevant rules and were also not empanelled for regular promotion. Thus their promotion was purely on ad hoc basis given in the exigencies of service and, therefore, rectification of the mistake by inclusion of the words "ad hoc" cannot be treated as improper nor the earlier order could confer any right upon them to be treated as regular promotees.
(3.) The Tribunal first adverted to the question of the violation of the principles of natural justice in not affording any opportunity to the appellants to put forth their say before the modification made by the department in regard to the nature of their promotion to the post of Law Assistant. The Tribunal noticed that against the orders made for ad hoc promotion representations were filed by the appellants and those representations were considered and rejected and, therefore, even if the original orders modifying the nature of their promotion were to be set aside on account of violation of the principles of natural justice, it would only mean that another opportunity had to be given to the appellants and, therefore, if such an opportunity had been given, all that they could have done is to disclose the facts which had already been disclosed in the course of their representations. On that basis the Tribunal held that non-issue of a notice before the orders impugned in the proceedings could not vitiate the same.;