BABY GEORGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that arises for consideration in this O.A. is whether in the matter of fixation of seniority of Junior Telecom Officers (JTOs for short) promoted in pursuance of the same year's selection process, the ranking made on the basis of the performance evaluation with regard to the prescribed training course can be the sole criterion without any reference to the merit position reflected in the results of the departmental competitive examinations. THE applicant, nine in number, appeared for the departmental competitive examinations for filling the vacancies of JTOs which arose in the year 1989 in respect of 15% quota earmarked for clerical and parallel cadres and 10% quota earmarked for Telephone Inspectors and other parallel cadres. Applicants 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 were selected as JTOs against 15% quota reserved for clerical and parallel cadres and applicants 1, 3, 5 and 7 against 10% quota exclusively reserved for Telephone Inspectors and parallel cadres. THE examinations had been held in February, 1990 and the results were published as per A-2 communication dated 28.11.90. It would appear that the lists of successful candidates belonging to the 2 categories were separately prepared in order of merit. As there were large number of successful candidates compulsions of training logistics necessitated selection and deployment of candidates for the purpose of imparting the required training not strictly according to their position in the merit list. As and when candidates were available, and required for a particular field of specialisation, they were given the necessary training. On completion of training, the final seniority of the JTOs so promoted was determined on the basis of their ranking made in the light of the overall performance at the end of the course examination. In other words, the merit position of candidates as reflected in the selection list had no relevance to the final determination of seniority. THE applicants are aggrieved against this. A-3 gradation list dated 15.3.99 wherein the applicants respective seniority positions are reflected is under challenge. THE applicants' case is that seniority should be fixed according to merit in the examination in accordance with Para 32.E of the Post and Telegraph Manual, Vol. IV. According to them, when the recruitment is partly made from departmental candidates and partly from outsiders, the former should be senior to the latter. THErefore, the determination of final ranking on the exclusive basis of the performance of the candidates at the training course thereby unsettling the seniority position reflected in the select list is unsustainable. THEy take exception to the practice of in service training performance offsetting the seniority acquired on the basis of continuous officiation after due selection process and preparation of merit list. It is maintained by the applicants that if the actual seniority as per merit list is not maintained, it would be a violation of the quota rules among different categories in the merit list. Hence the applicants have filed the O.A. seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The respondents 1 to 3 in their reply statement defend their action stating that the system of awarding final seniority in respect of successful departmental candidates for the post of Engineering Supervisors since redesignated as JTO, has consistently been on the basis of their performance in the training. The various process of selection, training, appointment and fixation of seniority in relation to the applicants and other similarly placed candidates were governed by the then existing statutory recruitment rules and administrative instructions which remain unchallenged and therefore, the impugned gradation list prepared and published in pursuance of the then existing rules and instructions cannot be challenged. The practice of drawing Gradation Lists assigning seniority on the basis of the candidate's performance in the different modules of theoretical and practical training designed for imparting the required technical skill and managerial capabilities has been in vogue for several years. The findings of the C.A.T., Ernakulam Bench in O.A. Nos. 875/91 and 966/91 dated 19.8.93 are relied on to support the proposition that the procedure of determination of inter se seniority of each category on the basis of marks obtained in the examination at the end of the training, having been followed for a long period of time, is unassailable. Reliance is also placed on R3(B) communication dated 24.7.73 from P and T Board dealing with the procedure of fixing the inter se seniority of Engineering Supervisors (since redesignated as JTO) within the same group, i.e. departmental candidates and outside candidates, as the case may be, according to the percentage of post-training marks obtained by them.

(3.) THE 5th respondent in her reply statement has opposed the applicants' stand that seniority awarded as per A-2 merit list should be given to them as against the impugned A-3 gradation list. Since the candidates promoted to the cadre of JTOs are drawn from different educational streams and are selected them by different selection processes like competitive examination, qualifying screening test etc., a uniform evaluation of their abilities and ranking based on their educational qualification and performance in the initial selection process cannot be achieved. THE method of seniority determination followed even as per the guidelines of 1966 has been elucidated in R3(B). Same criteria are being followed for all these years albeit the change in designation of the post involved. THE issue before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal was retention of seniority of persons who had taken the examination earlier than those who took the examination at a later point of time. Besides, the direction contained in the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal are not applicable to the relief sought by the applicants whose case is more or less covered by R3(a).