Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, G. Subbiah, was appointed as a Junior Stenographer with the Western Railway on 19th October 1981. He was promoted to the post of Senior Stenographer in the grade of 1400-2600 (RPS) on 6th February 1986, but his promotion was treated as ad hoc. However, the promotion was in a clear and non-fortuitous vacancy. In 1994, 11 posts of Assistant Personnel Officer fell vacant, and the respondents invited applications from eligible staff to fill the vacancies by a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. The eligibility criterion required that employees who were regularly promoted in the grade of 1400-2600 or in a higher grade could apply, provided they had completed five years of non-fortuitous service in that grade. The petitioner applied but was not allowed to appear for the examination on the ground that his promotion to Senior Stenographer was ad hoc and not regular. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his Original Application. He then filed a Review Petition, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved, he filed the present Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court. The court considered the issue of whether an employee promoted on ad hoc basis in a clear vacancy is entitled to be considered for further promotion. The court held that the petitioner's promotion, though termed ad hoc, was in a clear and non-fortuitous vacancy, and he possessed the requisite qualifications. The court interpreted the term 'regularly promoted' in the eligibility criteria to include ad hoc promotions made in clear vacancies, as the purpose of the examination was to fill vacancies from among eligible staff. The court allowed the petition, set aside the orders of the Tribunal, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer in accordance with the rules.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Eligibility for Departmental Examination - Ad Hoc Appointment - The petitioner, a Senior Stenographer promoted on ad hoc basis in a clear vacancy, was held eligible to appear for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer, as his appointment was in a non-fortuitous vacancy and he possessed the requisite qualifications. The court held that the term 'regularly promoted' in the eligibility criteria must be interpreted liberally to include ad hoc promotions made in clear vacancies, and that the respondents could not deny consideration solely on the ground that the promotion was ad hoc. (Paras 1-6) B) Service Law - Railway Board Circular - Interpretation - The court interpreted the Railway Board circular dated 16.12.1993 which required 'regularly promoted in the grade of Rs.1400-2600' and held that the petitioner's ad hoc promotion in a clear vacancy satisfied the requirement of being 'regularly promoted' as the promotion was not fortuitous and was made against a substantive vacancy. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee who was promoted on ad hoc basis to a higher grade is entitled to be considered for further promotion to a higher post, when the eligibility criterion requires regular promotion in the grade.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer in accordance with the rules.
Law Points
- Ad hoc appointment
- regular promotion
- eligibility for departmental examination
- non-fortuitous service
- interpretation of Railway Board circulars
