http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: PILLA SITARAM PATRUDU & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (4)   731        1996 SCALE  (4)192

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      The 5th  respondent, K.R.  Ramanandan, was  selected by direct  recruitment  in  the  year  1977  for  selection  as Assistant Executive Engineer. All the direct recruits except the respondent  were appointed  in the  year  1978.  It  was admitted that  when he had filed O.P. No.7226/85 in the CAT, Ernakulam Bench,  by order  dated 31.1.1990 it was held that his appointment was delayed due to laches on the part of the Railway Administration.  After his  appointment in  the year 1981, within two years he passed his test. When his case was not considered for promotion as Executive Engineer, he filed the  O.A.   The  Tribunal  without  deciding  the  inter  se seniority in  the cadre  of Asstt.  Executive Engineers  had directed the Railway Administration to consider his case for promotion as Executive Engineer for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986 and  if found fit for promotion in any of the posts, to give him  promotion for that year and to fix seniority among Executive  Engineers   accordingly.  Pursuant  thereto,  the respondent  was   considered  and   promoted  as   Executive Engineer. After the above order came to be made, the Railway Administration did  not carry  the matter  in appeal to this Court. Some  of the  persons seemingly aggrieved against the direction admittedly  filed a review petition which was also dismissed and  that  order  became  final.  The  petitioners thereafter challenged the self same order by filing separate O.A. and in the impugned order of the Tribunal dated October 19, 1995  the Tribunal  has confirmed it earlier order. Thus this Special Leave Petition.      It  is   contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the petitioners that  since the  inter-re  seniority  as  Asstt. Engineers was  left open  in the order, the directions given by the  Tribunal to  consider the case as Executive Engineer and determine  his seniority  on the basis of the promotion, is not  valid in  law. We  find no  force in the contention. Once he is found to be eligible according to the rules, then

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

his seniority  is required  to  be  determined  as  per  the procedure prescribed  in the  rules in  vogue. It is further contended that  the fifth respondent was not qualified since he had not completed 8 years of required service. The Tribunal has  recorded a  finding that  two years  period is relaxable in  the case of the reserved candidates. The inter se seniority  as Asstt. Executive Engineer is required to be determined; he joined service in 1981 and, therefore, he did not have  the requisite  service. We  find no  force in  the contention. Since  he was selected by direct recruitment, he is  entitled   to  be   appointed  according  to  rule.  His appointment was  delayed for  no fault of him and he came to be appointed  in 1981,  he is,  therefore, entitled  to  the ranking given  in  the  select  list  and  appointment  made accordingly. Under  these circumstances,  we do not find any illegality in the order.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.