Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Arjun Sopan Gaikwad, was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 16 October 1978 and promoted to Upper Division Clerk on 9 April 1984. He sought placement in the seniority list for promotion to Office Superintendent above respondent No.4, Shri M.C. Shrivastava. The petitioner argued that he was promoted as Office Superintendent on an ad hoc basis on 1 July 1994, while respondent No.4 was promoted on 1 August 1994, and thus he should be senior. The respondents contended that the petitioner's regular promotion to Office Superintendent was on 1 August 1995, whereas respondent No.4's regular promotion was on 1 August 1994, making respondent No.4 senior. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the petitioner's claim. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that seniority for promotion is determined by the date of regular appointment, not ad hoc promotion. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Promotion - Seniority-cum-Fitness - Non-Selection Method - The dispute pertained to placement in seniority list for promotion to Office Superintendent - Petitioner claimed seniority from date of ad hoc promotion, but court held seniority must be determined from date of regular appointment - Held that seniority is governed by date of regular appointment, not ad hoc promotion, and the Tribunal correctly rejected the claim (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's name should be placed above respondent No.4 in the seniority list for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent, considering the dates of regular appointment and ad hoc promotion.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order rejecting the petitioner's claim for seniority.
Law Points
- Seniority-cum-fitness
- non-selection method
- date of regular appointment
- ad hoc promotion
- seniority list
- Central Civil Services (Classification
- Control and Appeal) Rules
- 1965
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (03) 84
Writ Petition No. 5807 of 2003
V. G. Palshikar, V. R. Kingaonkar
Mr. S. P. Saxena for Petitioner, Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Union of India, Director C.G.H.S., Additional Director C.G.H.S., Shri M. C. Shrivastava
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition against dismissal of Original Application by Central Administrative Tribunal regarding seniority list placement.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought placement of his name in the seniority list above respondent No.4 for promotion to Office Superintendent.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's claim for seniority based on ad hoc promotion was rejected by the Tribunal.
Previous Decisions
Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed Original Application No. 129 of 2000.
Issues
Whether the petitioner's name should be placed above respondent No.4 in the seniority list for promotion to Office Superintendent?
Whether seniority should be determined by date of regular appointment or date of ad hoc promotion?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was promoted as Office Superintendent on ad hoc basis on 1 July 1994, while respondent No.4 was promoted on 1 August 1994, so he should be senior.
Respondents argued that petitioner's regular promotion was on 1 August 1995, whereas respondent No.4's regular promotion was on 1 August 1994, making respondent No.4 senior.
Ratio Decidendi
Seniority for promotion in a non-selection method based on seniority-cum-fitness is determined by the date of regular appointment, not the date of ad hoc promotion.
Judgment Excerpts
There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner was appointed on regular basis to the post of Lower Division Clerk w.e.f. 16th October, 1978 and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 9th April, 1984.
The criteria for such promotion is ''Seniority-cum- Fitness'' by non- selection method.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Original Application No. 129 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed. He then filed Writ Petition No. 5807 of 2003 before the Bombay High Court, which was also dismissed.
Acts & Sections
- Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965:
