Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench

OA No.691/2007
MA No.848/2007

OA No.1079/2007

New Delhi this the 18th day of September 2008.

Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J)

Honble Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Chhotray, Member (A)

OA No.691/2007

1. Vinod Mehta,
S/o Shri Ishwar Chand Mehta,
Aged about 55 years, R/o GH-4,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110 063.

2. S.C. Nayak,
S/o Shri Dibakar Nayak,
Aged 54 years,
R/o B-704, Curzon Road Apartments,
K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110 001. -Applicants

(By Advocate Shri A.K. Behera)

-Versus-

Union of India through:

1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Director General,
All India Radio,
Akashwani Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 001.

3. Chief Executive Officer,

Prasar Bharti,
P.T.I. Building,
2nd Floor, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 001.

4. The Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110 011.

5. Pramod Mehta,
aged 46 years,
S/o Shri Krishan Kumar,
Working as Programme Executive,
All India Radio,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi. -Respondents

(By Advocate Shri M.K. Bhardwaj)

OA No.1079/2007

Mrs. Sunita Deb Mishra,

Aged about 54 years,
W/o Mr. D.K. Mishra,
Working as Asstt. Director of Programmes,
Doordarshan, Doordarshan Bhawan,
New Delhi and R/o 23/131, Lodi Colony,
New Delhi-110 003. -Applicant

(By Advocate Shri Ashwani Bhardwaj)

-Versus-

Union of India through:

1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
601, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 001.

2. Chief Executive Officer,

Prasar Bharti,
P.T.I. Building,
2nd Floor, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 001.

3. The Director General,

All India Radio,
Akashwani Bhawan,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110 001.

4. Shri Vijay Kumar Sambyal,

Assistant Director of Programmes,
All India Radio, Room No.125,
Akashwani Bhawan,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110 001. -Respondents

(By Advocate Shri Poursh Sudan, proxy for Shri M.M. Sudan,
Advocate)

ORDER

Mr. Shanker Raju, Honble Member (J):

It is trite that a decision rendered by a judicial forum cannot be

tinkered with and modified but for in review and by the higher forum in
appeal. Though a decision of the Court cannot be interpreted as if a Statute
but necessary inference and its ratio decidendi can be inferred by a rationale
and logical reading of it.
2. Seniority not being a Fundamental Right is only a civil right but
cannot be infringed except by application of valid rule, as ruled by the Apex
Court in State of U.P. v. Dinkar Sinha, 2008 (1) SCC (L&S) 38.
3. It is also trite that seniority once settled cannot be unsettled after a
long lapse of time in the wake of principle of a chaotic situation to arrive and
also under public policy, as ruled by the Apex Court in Sarat Chandra
Mishra v. State of Orissa, 2006 (1) SCALE 9.
3. With the above backdrop of principles of law enunciated and have
applicability in the present OAs, which are founded on similar facts with an
identical question of law, are being disposed of by this common order.
4. Applicants, who are holding substantively the posts of Programme
Executives have been functioning on ad hoc basis since 1999 as Assistant
Station Directors, by virtue of OA-691/2007 have assailed respondents order
dated 16.4.2007, where on revision of seniority list of Programme
Executives their position has been relegated with a threat of reversion to the
substantive post of Programme Executives. Quashing of the order and as an
alternate fixing the seniority at serial Nos. 128, 129, 136 and 137
respectively is also one of the prayers. Consequential benefits have been
sought.
5. In OA-1079/2007 seniority list is challenged by an Assistant Director
promoted in July 2003 on ad hoc basis after being promoted as Programme
Executive by an order dated 28.11.1988 w.e.f. 18.4.1983.
6. A brief factual matrix is relevant to be highlighted, transpires that a
duly constituted DPC vide order dated 16.3.1983, 30.3.1983 and 23.4.1983
fixed the seniority of applicants and issued a list on 1.10.1985. This has
preceded promotion of applicants vide order dated 16.3.1983. Both the
applicants in OA-691/2007 have been promoted on ad hoc basis as Assistant
Director (Programme Executives, JTS) w.e.f. 14.1.1999 since no regular
DPC for promotion was held since 1994. The aforesaid promotion
continued uninterruptedly from that date. After the seniority list of 1985,
another seniority list was issued on 19.12.1990 where the applicants have
been shown just below C.M. Ramachandra and Srikandan Nair. This was
followed by another seniority list issued on 4.1.1995 has also maintained the
above position. A seniority list issued on 4.5.1995 and 7.10.1998 had shown
applicants senior. A seniority list issued on 3.4.2003 and 16.7.2004 have
also maintained the above position, whereby seniority of applicants has been
fixed since 1983.
7. However, before the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal one Shri V.L.N.
Rao in TA-104/1986 impugned all India seniority ranking of Transmission
Executives dated 31.12.1981 on the ground that continuous officiation and
officiation from the date of holding of DPC was not the criterion of
preparing the eligibility list. Though the applicants in the present OAs were
not impleaded as necessary parties as respondents, yet the Bench of the
Tribunal on 5.3.1987 while striking down paragraph-5 of OM dated
21.6.1982 issued by the Director General the all India eligibility list of
Transmission Executive for the purpose of promotion as Programme
Executive was set aside, which reflected the position as on 31.12.1982. The
principle applied was of continuous officiation and also in case of fortuitous
appointment from the date of holding the DPC a direction has been issued to
prepare and compile a revised all India eligibility list of Transmission
Executives, indicating the position w.e.f. 1.1.1982 and persons are to be
arranged with reference to the continuous officiation or onset officiation
from the date of DPC. However, the following observations have been made
while protecting those who had already been promoted on the basis of the
quashed eligibility list:
It is further directed that further promotion to the posts of Programme
Executives subject to vacancies may be made on the basis of the revised All
India Eligibility List of Transmission Executives. A special DPC may be
convened for the purpose to consider the case of petitioner Shri V.L.N. Rao
and other officers similarly placed who would have become entitled to
promotion on the basis of the revised Eligibility List. However, no officer
who has been already promoted as Programme Executive on the basis of the
earlier Eligibility List like Shri Vinod Mehta and Shri M.H. Siddiqui shall be
adversely affected or reverted. The special DPC should consider the cases
of officers like the petitioners and other similarly placed, entitled to
promotion as the result of the revised Eligibility List as if the DPC had met
at that time when they became eligible for consideration on the basis of their
records of performance which would have been available at that time, and
not take into consideration any consequent material. If the DPC clears them
for promotion, they should be given notional promotion retrospectively from
the dates their immediate Juniors were promoted as Programme Executives
already, and their seniority in the cadre of Programme Executives
determined accordingly, and their pay fixed by grant of increments with
reference to the notional dates of promotion as Programme Executives.
They shall, however, not be entitled to arrears of pay or emoluments in the
higher post of Programme Executive until they actually assume the charge of
posts of Programme Executives, for the earlier period for which they have
not actually worked as Programme Executives, on the principles of no work
no pay.ﾵ

8. If one has regard to the above, on drawing eligibility list on the

principles laid down and a DPC to consider applicants and the other
similarly circumstanced for promotion, the promotion already given to the
persons, including applicants on the basis of earlier eligibility list have been
protected with an observation that those incumbents shall not be adversely
affected or reverted. However, on drawl of eligibility list notional promotion
retrospectively was allowed to the applicants of that OA and similarly
circumstanced as a judgment in rem from the date the immediate juniors
were promoted without any arrears. Insofar as their seniority is concerned,
the same has also been directed to be given effect to retrospectively.
9. Before the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in OA-671/87, Debasis
Gautam v. Union of India, Transmission Executives have sought seniority-
cum-eligibility list, which was ordered on the recommendation of the DPC
in pursuance of the directions of the Jabalpur Bench, an order passed on
29.4.1988 taking cognizance of paragraph-13 of the judgment of the
Jabalpur Bench (supra) the availability of vacancies on the basis of all India
revised eligibility list was taken. The Bench has ruled that a direction in rem
might have been complied with in respect of applicants before the Jabalpur
Bench but all other directions which are generalized in nature having not
been complied with, inclusion of applicants was directed in the all India
eligibility list published on 28.8.1987.
10. Before the Calcutta Bench OA-33/99 was filed by one Dr. B.C.
Chatterjee v. Union of India, where on the basis of promotion as Programme
Executives retrospectively from 14.8.1983 as per order dated 8.8.1987 a
grievance is raised against the seniority list issued on 27.1.1998 in the cadre
of Programme Executive Farm Radio Officer and Extension Officers.
11. In the above backdrop, the official respondents plea that the seniority
position has to be fixed on the basis of the directions issued by the Jabalpur
Bench and if those who had already been given promotion are not to be
disturbed the action of the respondents was correct. However, the following
observations have been made in that order, which are reproduced as under:
11. We find that the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal by its order dt.
5.3.87 in TA-104/86, it was clearly directed that further promotion to the
post of Programme Executive subject to vacancies may be made on the basis
of revised All India Eligibility List and a special DPC may be convened for
the purpose and if the DPC clears them for promotion they should be given
notional promotion retrospectively from the dates their immediate juniors
were promoted and their seniority in the cadre of Programme Executives
determined accordingly. Therefore, there is clear direction for maintenance
of seniority. We are at a loss to understand as to how without literally
following the direction passed by the Jabalpur Bench, the official
respondents have followed the same more in its breach.ﾵ

12. Having regard to the above, when further promotion to the grade of
Programme Executive was subjected to vacancies on the basis of all India
revised eligibility list and promotions on notional basis were given from the
date of junior the seniority of such a notional promotion has to be
maintained, directions have been issued to re-consider the matter by an order
passed on 23.8.2004. However, the aforesaid decision was challenged before
the High Court at Calcutta in WP (C) NO.816/2005, where an order passed
on 2.2.2006, directed as under:
We, therefore, direct that let the petitioners carry out the direction
contained in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Tribunal which is set out
above and while doing so they will act in accordance with law. Such
exercise be completed within a period of three months from date.ﾵ

13. Since 1997 till 2005 the seniority in the grade of Programme
Executive issued from time to time has not been challenged with respect of
seven promotees as Programme Executive and their rights being safeguarded
by the Jabalpur Bench by any of the incumbent. However, the Programme
Staff Welfare Association filed OA-789/2005 before the Principal Bench of
the Tribunal. It is pertinent to note that this is the only Petition which has
impleaded the applicants as necessary parties. The promotion orders of the
applicants as Programme Executives were also challenged. An order passed
on 2.6.2005 in MA-1067/2005 no blanket ban on promotion was ordered but
the promotions have been made subject to the outcome of the OA. An order
passed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on 25.4.2005 was
taken cognizance of, wherein an advice has been tendered as to undue
promotion in the grade of Programme Executives.
14. On the basis of an interim order passed, a draft seniority was issued on
10.11.2006, whereby the seniority position of applicants was downgraded by
about 500 places. OA-789/2005 was allowed to be withdrawn by filing MA-
143/2007 on 19.1.2007. MA-504/2007 was filed before the Tribunal to
establish the fraud played by the applicants in OA-789/2005 and the order
was reserved on 3.4.2007. An order passed by the Tribunal categorically
directed respondents not to take into consideration any of the interim
orders/observations made by it during the pendency of OA-789/2005. When
the seniority position has not been corrected, leads to the present OAs.
15. Whereas in OA-789/2005 an order passed on 28.11.1988 applicant
was promoted as Programme Executive, complying the order of Jabalpur
Bench dated 5.3.1987 and as seniority has been fixed right upto 2004 on the
basis of which she was promoted on ad hoc basis as Assistant Director of
Programme. However, in the draft seniority list of 10.11.2006 the seniority
position when altered led to an objection. Some of the persons who were
similarly situated filed OA-689/2007 before the Tribunal where interim
orders have been issued to protect their seniority on 26.4.2007. The
aforesaid seniority was also challenged in OA-153/2007 before the
Ahemedabad Bench, where by way of an interim order dated 11.5.2007
seniority position was to be restored.
16. Learned counsel of applicants basically propagated on the basis of
cited decisions that once the promotion of applicants on 16.3.1983 as despite
eligibility list was to be revised having been protected the seniority settled
by the respondents through a well conscious decision and this seniority
continued till 2004 cannot be altered after a long lapse of time to unsettle the
settled position. Learned counsel would contend that while observing that
the persons who have already been promoted on the basis of the earlier
eligibility list, including both the applicants shall not be adversely affected
or reverted. The seniority list now issued has an effect not only
prospectively advancing the date of promotion of applicants but also
alteration of their seniority, which is not in accordance with the decision of
the Apex Court in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, 2003 (5) SCC 604.
Also relied upon is a decision of the Apex Court in B.S. Bajwa v. State of
Punjab, 1998 (1) SCALE 78, to contend that question of seniority should not
be open in such situation after a lapse of reasonable period. The learned
counsel further relied upon on the same analogy a decision of the Apex
Court in Shiv Kumar Tiwari v. Jagat Narain Rai, 2001 (10) SCC 11 to
contend that once the decision of the judicial for a has attained finality, it
cannot be varied except by way of a legal methodology. Learned counsel
has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. V.H.
Shah, 1996 (6) SCC 721 to contend that once the promotions have been final
the others are to be adjusted. While referring to the decision in OA-
789/2005 it is stated that by way of clarification the interim directions issued
are not to be considered by the respondents and such revision of the seniority
is basically on the basis of the interim order, the same cannot be sustained in
law.
17. Learned counsel would also contend that the decision of the Calcutta
Bench where the applicants were not parties cannot be used against them to
their detriment. Learned counsel states that the private respondents have no
locus standi as being appointed in subsequent years merely because they
were selected against a particular year, the seniority by opening the slots
cannot be allowed to them. Learned counsel states that applicants were
promoted against 7 vacancies and their seniority cannot be altered
unilaterally. It is stated that on 1.1.1982 the eligibility was 5 years and the
applicants have fulfilled such conditions in Dabasis Gautams case (supra)
where the recruitment rules were amended in 1984, the aforesaid condition
of 8 years cannot be enforced upon them and as before the Jabalpur Bench
the position as on 1.1.1982 was 5 years service, that has to be operated.
18. Learned counsel states that private respondents were inducted in
service only in 1988 whereas applicants were promoted in 1983 and prior to
their berth in the cadre as direct recruits they cannot be placed above the
applicants. Learned counsel states that after 1988 though 7 seniority lists
were issued, no challenge has been made by the private respondents. While
referring to the decision of the Calcutta Bench it is stated that therein only
private respondents who are the parties and applicants were not parties
cannot be operated against the detriment of applicants.
19. On the other hand, official respondents in their reply mainly relied
upon the decision of the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal, as affirmed by the
High Court of Calcutta to contend that the directions of the Jabalpur Bench
has been wrongly construed and as a result thereof though juniors of
applicants have been given notional promotion from yester years, yet
applicants despite juniors have figured on top in the seniority list and just to
avoid perpetuity of illegality and correct it, the action has been taken in
consonance with the directions of the Tribunal at Calcutta Bench.
20. Private respondent No.5 vehemently opposed the contentions and
stated that promotion of applicants in the DPC held in 1982 was provisional
subject to OP No.6037/1982 before the Calcutta High Court and there was
no challenge to the DPC minutes. It is stated that seniority of 23.4.1984
when challenged was quashed. It is stated that eligibility list when finalized
in 1982 only 7 vacancies were there but without any vacancies more than
100 persons were promoted, including juniors to applicants before the
Calcutta Bench, i.e., applicants. Accordingly a wrong promotion given to
them though may be protected but consequences of it like seniority would
not be allowed.
21. Respondent No.6, represented through Shri R. Venkatramani, learned
Senior Counsel along with a junior counsel, states that those adversely
affected and their protection before the Jabalpur Bench was only in respect
of promotion but they have been given more than their due and this cannot
be treated as a blanket declaration and perpetuated illegality in the form of
wrong assignment of seniority. By way of misconstruing the order of the
Jabalpur Bench and not following the orders passed by the Calcutta Bench,
as affirmed by the High Court, Government of India is undoing a wrong and
rectifying a mistake. The decision of the Jabalpur Bench was only in respect
of promotion and as it is founded on equity, which is not to be raised later
on. While referring to the brief prepared in pursuance of the directions in
OA-789/2005 it is stated that promotion to be pushed further from the time
of eligibility and though earlier promotion is protected for reversion only,
while referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Sonal Sihimappa v. State
of Karnataka, AIR 1987 SC 2359, it is stated that once the promoted officer
got advantage of promotion before it became due, the aforesaid advantage
should have to be balanced against forfeiture of claim to seniority.
22. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and
perused the material on record.
23. Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India we cannot apply it in
case of an illegality though the Article carries a positive concept, as ruled by
the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Manjul v. Chairman, UPSC, 2006 (8) SCC
42. Article 14 of the Constitution of India can also not to be applied to
legitimize illegal and illegitimate action, as ruled by the Apex Court in Ekta
Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, 2006 (10) SCC 337.
24. The Apex Court in a Constitution Bench decision in Prafulla Kumar
Das v. State of Orissa, 2004 SCC (L&S) 121, holding that seniority is not a
fundamental right but a civil right, ruled as under:
33. Under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India, it is open to the Governor of
the State to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of
service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in
that behalf is made by or under an Act of the Legislature. As has been rightly
pointed out by the Court in the Nityananda Kar case (supra), the Legislature,
or the Governor of the State, as the case may be, may, in its discretion,
bestow or divest a right of seniority. This is essentially a matter of policy,
and the question of a vested right would not arise, as the State may alter or
deny any such ostensible right, even by way of retrospective effect, if it so
chooses (sic) in public interest.ﾵ

25. Having regard to the above, when no vested right can be claimed
against seniority even alteration of such a right to set right an illegality and
to validly comply with legal dicta a retrospective effect cannot be said to be
an illegal act on the part of the respondents.
26. In Sarat Chandra Mishra (supra) while holding that judgment of a
Court cannot be read as a statute and a presumption of its correctness in
accordance with law has to be presumed, ruled that a settled thing in
accordance with law cannot be unsettled.
27. In K.P. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala, 2006 (5) SCC 386, in a case
where seniority though wrongly settled when corrected on unsettlement, the
claim propagated by the adversely affected has been dealt with the following
observations:
18. The learned counsel for the contesting private respondents lastly
submitted that by now the appellants and the contesting private respondents
have all been promoted from the posts of LDC to UDC and several of them
have also been promoted as Sub-Registrars and the matter should not be
unsettled after such a long time. We find that the matter has been
continuously under litigation ever since 1990 and the delay in disposal
cannot defeat the rights of appellants.ﾵ

28. Before the Apex Court in Sonals case (supra) as regards promotions
protected, determination of seniority had been held to be operated as
follows:
19. In a precedent-bound judicial system binding authorities have got to be
respected and the procedure for developing the law has to be one of
evolution. It is not necessary for disposal of these matters before us to go
into that aspect except noticing the existence of distortion in the field. The
rationalisation of the view in a way known to law is perhaps to be attempted
some day in future. In the present batch of cases the law being clear and
particularly the mandate in the rule being that when recruitment takes place
the promotee has to make room for the direct recruit, every promotee in such
a situation would not be entitled to claim any further benefit than the
advantage of being in a promotional post not due to him but yet filled by
him in the absence of a direct recruit. One aspect which we consider relevant
to bear in mind is that the promoted officer has got the advantage of having
been promoted before it became his due and is not being made to lose his
promotional position. The dispute is confined to one of seniority only. The
advantage received by the promotee before his chance opened should be
balanced against his forfeiture of claim to seniority. If the matter is looked at
from that angle there would be no scope for heart-burning or at any rate
dissatisfaction is expected to be reduced so far as the promotees are
concerned.ﾵ
29. The case-laws cited by the learned counsel of applicants holding that
in the matter of seniority settled position cannot be unsettled, shall not be
construed to propagate and legitimize an illegality. If the seniority has been
assigned to the applicants not in accordance with the rules not being a vested
right and merely a civil right an opportunity in the form of circulation of
draft seniority list is a valid compliance of both principles of natural justice
and law. One cannot claim inequity and illegality.
30. While it is not disputed that applicants have been promoted as
Programme Executives in 1983, yet before the Jabalpur Bench (supra) a
challenge to the eligibility list, which was not prepared in accordance with
the principles of continuous officiation and as a result thereof certain seniors
have been left over and whereas their there only 7 vacancies in 1987
subsequently retrospectively in 1987 a number of persons have been
promoted and the conclusion drawn that the eligibility list was not
sustainable when struck down what has been protected in respect of
applicants is their earlier promotion, which was protected only with
reference to their reversion in the wake of principles of natural justice, as
they were not parties before the Jabalpur Bench. However, in para-13 though
the eligibility list has been set aside the applicants and other similarly
situated persons who were seniors to applicants but left over from being
considered for promotion a special DPC was ordered to be constituted and to
consider promotion on the basis of eligibility list. Accordingly, the notional
promotion given should be from the date their immediate juniors were
promoted and their seniority accordingly in the cadre of Programme
Executives was to be determined. This leaves no doubt in our mind that
what has been protected in the context of the applicant was only their undue
and illegal promotion, leaving the seniors but the seniority was not
protected, as grant of seniority on notional promotion to the seniors was to
be operated. The decision of the Jabalpur Bench though cannot be
commented upon but was ordered to be complied with in its true letter and
spirit in Debasis Gautams case (supra) what has been observed is that the
Jabalpur Bench as protected the position of applicants in the present OA
only for promotion but the seniority has to be re-determined with grant of
notional seniority to those who figured in the revised eligibility list. When
these directions have been on affirmation in WP-816/2005 it is more of
probative and precedent value then the decision rendered by the Jabalpur
Bench. Though we are conscious of the fact that in OA-789/2005 the
directions were not to be adhered to by an order, whereby in an MA filed by
the private respondents, i.e., applicants, yet the decision of the respondents
to rectify the above mistake of wrong assignment of seniority to the
applicants and their notional placement without disturbing their promotion
in a particular year as per their redrawn eligibility though had not disturbed
the promotions but the grant of seniority has to be on the basis of the revised
eligibility list and also in the wake of notional promotion to the seniors.
31. Insofar as the legality of promotion of 7 persons, including applicant
No.2 have never been gone into, yet the fact that they were juniors to those
who have been left over in the erstwhile eligibility list is no more res integra.
They may be eligible for promotion in 1983, yet the seniors were left over
and in such an event even as per the Rules nothing precluded the
respondents to hold a review DPC to correct this illegality and to promote
them from a date and in such an event when the seniority list issued from
time to time shows the position on account of promotion as per the revised
eligibility list, the fact that applicants being juniors cannot be disputed. As
such, now placing them seniors to the applicants though seniority list of
2004 inadvertently in incorrect interpretation of Jabalpur Bench figured the
applicants on the top of the seniority list, yet this would not bestow upon
them any vested right to perpetuate this illegality.
32. As regards a decision to interpolate the private respondents who are
direct recruitees of 1988 on selection pertaining to the yester years on the
vacant slots when they were not borne in the cadre as having not been
agitated and assailed cannot be adjudicated. However, the fact that
applicants whose seniority is now sought to be rectified, their promotion had
already been protected but this out of turn promotion before the seniors will
not bestow a right on them to regain their seniority from that date as per
Sonals case (supra). From the perusal of the objection filed against the
proposed seniority list as well as the pleadings in the OA, we do not find any
challenge as to the issue of direct recruitees being given seniority from
yesteryears.
33. What is being unsettled by the respondents is not in strict sense
unsettlement of settled seniority. Such settled seniority would be when it is
determined legally in accordance with rules, more particularly when
seniority is a civil right. If the erstwhile seniority may be pertaining to the
last number of years is determined wrongly de hors the directions of the
Tribunal and a direction to re-determine, which has attained finality by the
High Court of Calcutta when complied with is an impact in law, which has
to operate the field. Applicants cannot be perpetuated to be the beneficiaries
of an illegality.
34. Insofar as OA-1079/2007 is concerned, applicant has been promoted
despite non-availability of vacancy and de hors the directions of the Jabalpur
Bench, yet the promotion has been protected but the seniority cannot be
allowed to her de hors the rules over and above her seniors who got seniority
on notional promotion.
35. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the
claim of the applicants. Accordingly, OAs are dismissed. Interim order is
hereby vacated. No costs.
Let a copy of this order be placed in OA No.1079/2007 as well.

(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju)

Member (A) Member (J)

San.