- (1.) THE petitioner in this WPCT under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dated March 11, 2013 is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (Circuit at Port Blair) dated March 5, 2013 in OA No.20/AN/2013 dismissing his OA at the admission stage.
(2.) BY an order dated August 13, 1990 (WPCT p.35), the petitioner and six other post graduate teachers were regularized in the employment of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration (The Directorate of Education) with effect from August 1, 1990. The Administration published the final seniority list of the grade on October 5, 2001 (WPCT p.38). The list reveals that different seniority positions were assigned to the seven persons whose services were regularized by the order dated August 13, 1990.
(3.) SAYING that his first ad -hoc appointment was on November 2, 1987 and that till the date of regularization he was in uninterruptedservice on the basis of successive appointment orders, the petitioner filed the OA claiming seniority in the grade with effect from his initial date of appointment (i.e. November 2, 1987). The Tribunal dismissed the OA on the grounds that a favourable decision would unsettle a settled position after about two decades. It is not the case that the Tribunal found the cause of action to be barred by limitation. It did not ask the respondents to file any reply. This, in our considered opinion, was not the correct course. On the facts, we are of the opinion that the respondents ought to have been asked to file reply.;