Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. L.M. Mahadik and Shri S.D. Jagtap, filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai, which dismissed their Original Applications. The dispute concerned the seniority list of section supervisors in the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai. The petitioners claimed that they were promoted earlier than candidates who were promoted through departmental examinations, but the revised seniority list placed those candidates above them. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.145 of 2000 had filed O.A. No.128 of 1994 challenging the seniority list prepared under circular dated 25th October 1993 and finalized on 2nd December 1993. She argued that the seniority list should have been revised in accordance with directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No.430 of 1988, which followed a judgment of the CAT Chandigarh Bench upheld by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) 7274 of 1987 dated 11th August 1987. The court considered the submissions and found that the seniority list was correctly prepared based on the date of promotion. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to be placed above the promotees through departmental examinations as their promotions were later. The court dismissed both writ petitions, affirming the decision of the CAT.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Promotion - Date of Promotion - The petitioners challenged the seniority list of section supervisors in the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai, claiming that they were promoted earlier than candidates promoted through departmental examinations but were placed below them. The court held that seniority is determined by the date of promotion, not by the date of eligibility, and dismissed the petitions. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the seniority list of section supervisors prepared by the respondents is valid and whether the petitioners are entitled to be placed above those promoted through departmental examinations.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Seniority list
- Promotion
- Date of promotion
- Eligibility
- Administrative Tribunal
- Judicial review
- Article 226
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (01) 143
Writ Petition No.145 of 2000 and Writ Petition No.224 of 2000
H.L. Gokhale and S.C. Dharmadhikari, JJ
Mr. R.R. Dalvi for petitioners, Mr. Suresh Kumar for Union of India
Smt. L.M. Mahadik and Shri S.D. Jagtap
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, dismissing Original Applications concerning seniority of section supervisors.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought revision of the seniority list of section supervisors to place them above candidates promoted through departmental examinations.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the seniority list which placed candidates promoted through departmental examinations above them, despite their earlier promotion.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, dismissed the Original Applications filed by the petitioners.
Issues
Whether the seniority list of section supervisors prepared by the respondents is valid.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to be placed above those promoted through departmental examinations.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the seniority list should have been revised in accordance with directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No.430 of 1988, which followed a judgment of the CAT Chandigarh Bench upheld by the Supreme Court.
Respondents contended that the seniority list was correctly prepared based on the date of promotion.
Ratio Decidendi
Seniority is determined by the date of promotion, not by the date of eligibility. The petitioners were promoted later than the candidates promoted through departmental examinations, and therefore, they are not entitled to be placed above them.
Judgment Excerpts
These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original applications filed by petitioners.
The petitioners are concerned with the seniority list of section supervisors in the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai.
They claim to be promoted earlier than candidates promoted through departmental examinations.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, which were dismissed. Aggrieved, they filed the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
