K.Chandru - (1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for Mr. Ravindranath, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Mr. Karthick Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the records.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the common order dated 04.9.1997 made in O.A. Nos. 295 of 1995 and 493 of 1995 by the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'CAT'], the Union of India and the Director General of Works, Central Public Works Department have filed the two writ petitions. The contesting respondents lead by A.S. Anandram and others filed O.A. No. 295 of 1995 and V.S. Thirunavukkarasu and others filed O.A. No. 493 of 1995. In both the Original Applications, the challenge was made to the seniority lists of Executive Engineers issued on 12.01.1994 and 25.11.1994 in the case of Electrical Wing and the seniority lists dated 19.01.1994, 20.5.1994 and 20.10.1994 in the case of Civil Engineering Wing and also O.Ms. Dated 04.01.1997 and 05.02.1997 were also challenged. The contesting respondents also sought for preparation of respective seniority lists by excluding the Diploma holder Assistant Engineers for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers in the Central Public Works Department by giving retrospective effect from 30.10.1972. Before the CAT, a common reply statement dated 22.12.1995 was filed by the petitioners and in that, an objection was taken by stating that the contesting respondents were raking up an issue, which was settled before 1972 and their action is barred by limitation. It was also stated that no records prior to the year 1972 are available with the petitioners and the promotion of Diploma holder Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers were continuing from the very beginning. A detailed analysis of the settled position was listed out in the reply statement dated 20.12.1995.
(3.) TAKING cue from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5363 of 1990 [J.N. Goesl and others v. Union of India and others], which granted liberty to aggrieved persons over the promotion of any of the Diploma holder Assistant Engineers to the cadre of Executive Engineers after filing O.A. No. 704 of 1988 and prior to coming into force of 1996 Rules, to agitate the said grievance in the competent forum, the CAT held that since the seniority list was published for the first time in the year 1994, the Original Applicants can be allowed to be agitated. It was also held that the respondents should be directed to review adhoc promotions made already prior to 1996 amendment to the Rules. The CAT also held that in view of the spate of litigations over the period, 1994 seniority list should be quashed and the matter should be sent for reconsideration in the light of the order dated 14.01.1967 passed by the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, the seniority list was quashed. When the writ petitions were filed, interim order was granted by this Court on 14.7.1998 and the stay is still in operation. We are of the opinion that the CAT was wrong in reading into the judgment rendered in Goel's case (cited supra), more than what has been stated therein. The judgment of the Supreme Court confined to promotion made to the Grade of Executive Engineer after filing of O.A. No. 704 of 1988 before the Tribunal. Thus, the regular promotions made prior to 1988 are outside the scope of the judgment of the Supreme Court. The CAT, without reference to the scope of the Supreme Court's judgment, had set aside several seniority lists.;