CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH : BANGALORE
TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No.424/2009
TODAY, THIS THE ......... DAY OF ..............., 2011
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ... MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR ... MEMBER (J)
Sri Venkatanarasaiah T. 52 years,
Junior Telecom Officer (Outdoor) Peenya,
O/o Principal General Manager,
Bangalore Telecom District,
Bangalore – 560 001. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri P.A. Kulkarni)
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
by its Chairman and Managing Director,
No.20, Ashoka Road, Sanchar Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Chief General Manager Telecom,
Karnataka Telecom Circle,
No.1, Swamy Vivekananda Road,
Ulsoor, Bangalore – 560 008.
3. Principal General Manager,
(previously known as Sr. General Manager),
Bangalore Telecom District,
Telephone House, Bangalore-560 001. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri V.N. Holla,
Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel)
O R D E R
Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :
The applicant has filed this application before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 8-2-2007 in Writ Petition No.2324/2007 and the same has been trainsferred to this Tribunal on 3.4.2009 and renumbered as TA NO.424/2009.
2. The brief issue in the matter is that the applicant was working as Phone Inspector in the Office of the Principal General Manager, Bangalore Telecom District, Bangalore- Respondent No.3. He is entitled to promotion as JTO (Junior Telecom Officer). However, the pre-requisite is completion of JTO Induction Training. He was deputed for the same by order dated 30.11.1995 as at Annexure-'A'. But, he was not able to complete the said training. On medical grounds, he was sent back in the middle of the training. Then, he was re-deputed for training on 8.3.1999 as at Annexure-'B'. As he completed the same, he was promoted as JTO in the scale of Rs.6500-200-10500/- by order dated 19.8.1999 – Annexure-'C'. His deputation to the first training was against the 35% Group quota of JTOs for vacancies in the year 1993, whereas, the actual completion of training was in 1999.
3. The JTOs are eligible for promotion to the cadre of SDE (Sub-Divisional Engineer). Hence, the seniority in the JTO cadre plays crucial role. Although the applicant was deputed for the first training against the quota of 1993 vacancy, the department has given him the 1998 seniority which seriously affects his chances of early promotion as SDE. He represented on 23.4.2005 vide Annexure-'F'. The same was considered by the authority and his seniority has been brought to the year 1997 vide Annexure-'G'. The applicant remains aggrieved as his contention is that he should be given the seniority of 1993. Hence, this application.
4. Annexure-'A' which is the first order for deputation for training mentions at the internal Annexure-'D' that "the officers so deputed will be absorbed against the 35% quota of 1993 to the extent of availability of vacancies and remaining against future years of recruitment." Vide second order for training-Annexure-'B', the applicant along with others was directed to report to the Training at Nagpur, which was due to begin on 19.4.1999 and this order once again shows the applicant as belonging to the recruitment year of 1993. Hence, his claim.
5. From both these Annexures, it is obvious that the year 1993 referred therein is subject to availability of vacancies and is not a statement of his position in the seniority list per-se. The seniority list which came to be first declared showed him as having 1998 seniority. The applicant has not produced any document containing such seniority list. Only his representation against it and the subsequent modification by the department to roll back his seniority to 1997 has been produced. The representation is too brief and cites only the reason for his training orders. The order of the respondents at Annexure-'G' has been further confirmed by a reply to his representation dated 23.12.2006 – Annexure-'H' which is a more detailed reply. The reasons given is as below:
"Accordingly you were ordered for JTO induction training .w.e.f. 23/12/1996 at RTTC,Mysore, for the year of recruitment 1993. But you have been discharged from the training centre on the a/n of 17/03/1997 for the reasons that you were not successful in 4 no. of modules and one in the second attempt. Also, unauthorized absence & improper medical certificates vide RTTC Mysore letter dated 17/03/97 & 19/03/97. As per the training rules, a candidate who fails in 4 or more modules has to be terminated from the training.
Your representation dated 09th March '98 for re-deputation was rejected by the competent authority, as there is no provision in the ruling for terminated (on the basis of failure) candidates for redeputation ....
Even though there is no provision to redepute for the failed candidates the head of the circle has considered your case on extreme compassionate and humanitarian ground. Then you were sent for Induction training at RTTC, Nagpur w.e.f.19/04/1999 but the year of recruitment was wrongly mentioned as 1993 because as per the rules the year of recruitment has to be fixed on par with the candidates of the batch, who were under training when you were ordered for training. There was a batch at RTTC Mysore for the candidates selected on Walk-in-group under 35% quota for the year of recruitment 1997. Accordingly your Year of recruitment has been finalised as 1997."
6. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that once the department has indicated him to be against 1993 recruitment as done at Annexure-'B', the department is barred to change his seniority without giving him notice and hearing. We do not consider any merit in this argument because the focus while issuing the deputation order for training is on specifying the Rules of training, the dos and don'ts, etc., and by no means it can confer the right of seniority. Seniority list is prepaed by the department once in a while as per the standard procedure and there is a laid down procedure for publishing the provisional seniority list, inviting objections, considering them and publishing the final seniority list. In issuing it, the department has followed this procedure.
7. The learned counsel for respondents has also brought to our notice Annexure-R/3 which is the guidelines issued by the Director General, P&T, New Delhi, on the question of treatment of candidates who do not respond to the call for training from the department. This supports the action taken at Annexure'H'.
8. We have also gone through the Recruitment Rule as at Annexure-'D' and find that Rule 5(ii) is quite clear on the issue of the need for successful completion of the training, passing the module in first attempt, etc.
9. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in this application. We see no need to quash the imugned order at Annexure-'G'.
10. The TA is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.
(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)