AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These writ petitions are presented challenging the
common order dated 17.10.2017 passed by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (''''KAT'''' for short),
dismissing Applications No.7328 to 7330/2006 and
connected cases.
We have heard Shri Ranganatha S. Jois, learned
Counsel for petitioners and Shri M.Nagaprasanna, learned
Counsel for caveator/respondent No.6.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are, petitioners
were initially selected for the post of ''''gardners'''' in the
Horticulture Department, Government of Karnataka in the
year 1987, but, they were not issued with the orders of
appointment. Feeling aggrieved, they approached the KAT
in Applications No.1646, 1647 to 1656 & 1658/1990 and
Applications No.1632, 1672, 1673 & 1674/1992. On
conclusion of those proceedings, appointment orders were
issued in the year 1998. The respondent-Department
prepared the seniority list for the first time on 8.5.2003,
wherein, daily wage employees, who were regularized
against supernumerary posts were placed above applicants
at Sl.No.2193 to 4349. The petitioners filed their objections
to the said seniority list. Without considering their
objections, final seniority list was prepared on 8/23.9.2005.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioners approached the KAT for
redressal of their grievances. By the order impugned, the
KAT has dismissed their applications.
Shri Jois, argued that, it is not in dispute that the
petitioners had applied for the posts of ''''gardners'''' against
existing regular vacancies and they were selected in the
year 1987. The respondent-State, illegally delayed issuance
of orders of appointment compelling the petitioners to
approach the KAT. After a long drawn legal battle,
appointment orders were issued, after a lapse of about a
decade. The KAT, without appreciating the legal contentions
urged by the petitioners has dismissed the Applications.
Accordingly, he prayed for allowing these writ petitions.
Opposing the writ petitions, Shri M.Nagaprasanna,
learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents,
submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioners were
issued with the orders of appointment from and after 1998.
It is settled in law that, the seniority of an employee will
have to be reckoned from the date on which, he is borne on
the said cadre. Therefore, there is no error in the seniority
list prepared by the respondent-State.
We have carefully considered the submissions made
by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the records.
The undisputed facts are, petitioners have been
appointed from and after 1998. The grievance of the
petitioners is that, some of the employees, who were
working on daily wage basis and absorbed subsequently,
have been placed above them in the seniority list.
Shri Nagaprasanna, is right in his submission that the
seniority of an employee will have to be reckoned only from
the date on which he is appointed in his cadre. We may
usefully refer to the settled position of law enunciated by
the Hon''''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nani Sha
v. State of Arunachal Pradesh reported in (2007) 15 SCC
406 , wherein, it is held as follows:- 16. Lastly, the High Court has specifically rejected the claim of the appellants on another ground, namely, that the appellants were not borne in the cadre of ACF on the date from which they have been given the seniority. We are in complete agreement with the High Court, particularly in view of the decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath [1991 Supp (1) SCC 334 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1070 : (1991) 16 ATC 936] which decision was reiterated in State of Bihar v. Bateshwar Sharma[(1997) 4 SCC 424 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 975] . We do not want to burden this judgment with further reported decisions. However, the same view has been taken in another reported decision of this Court in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers'' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 346 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 116 : JT (2006) 12 SC 513] where in para 18 this Court has taken a view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to be adversely affecting those who were appointed validly in the meantime. (Emphasis supplied)
In view of the settled position of law and the
undisputed facts in question, no exception can be taken to
the impugned order passed by the KAT. Resultantly, these
petitions must fail and are accordingly dismissed.
Petitions dismissed.
We make no order as to costs.