Naresh Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India & Others

Sl. No.,Name(S/Shri),CAT,D.O.B.,Panel Year,Remarks

114.,"Naresh

Kumar Gupta",UR,15/04/1961,2001-02,

Though learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to above, does not apply to the",,,,,

facts of his case, he is not able to satisfy as to how it does not apply. The issue therein was very specific and their Lordship clearly enunciated the",,,,,

principle.,,,,,

Obviously, by taking this into account, the respondents started an exercise to prepare a seniority list for the post of EEs as on 01.01.2018. Initially a",,,,,

draft seniority list was published and on consideration of the objections received in reply thereto, the final seniority list was published. OM dated",,,,,

17.01.2020 reads as under:-,,,,,

“Office Memorandum,,,,,

Sub: Final Inter-se-Seniority List as on 01.01.2018 in the grade of Executive Engineers (Civil), CPWD.",,,,,

A provisional inter-se-seniority list in the grade of Executive Engineers(Civil) was circulated vide this Directorate’s OM No.37/1/2018-EC.I(B),,,,,

dated 9th April 2018 for inviting the objections/observations, if any, against the said seniority list. Objections & observations received from the",,,,,

individual officers as well as from the stakeholders were examined. The objections which were found to be correct had been accordingly incorporated,,,,,

in the final inter-se-seniority list.,,,,,

The inter-se-seniority list in the grade of EE(Civil) is prepared on the basis of MHA’s OM No.9/11/55-RPS dt. 22.12.1959 regarding general,,,,,

principles for determining seniority and DoP&T’s OM No.20020/4/89-ESTT. (D) dt. 7.02.1990 regarding inter-se-seniority of officers promoted,,,,,

from more than one feeder grade’s and DoPT OM No.22011/5/86-Estt. (D) dt. 10.04.1989 which provides that promotions will have only,,,,,

prospective effect even in cases where the vacancies relate to earlier year(s). The inter-se-seniority list is in concurrence with the Hon’ble,,,,,

Supreme Court Judgment in the matter of 2006 (10) SCC 346, Uttranchal Forest Rangers’ (DR) and Ors. Vs. State of UP and Ors. which was",,,,,

referred in the para-16 in order dated 16.07.2007 of Hon’ble CAT, New Delhi in OA No.779/2006.",,,,,

The final inter-se-seniority list in the grade of Executive Engineers(Civil) as on 01.01.2018 is enclosed as Annexure and will be in supersession of,,,,,

seniority list of Executive Engineers (Civil) which was issued as on 01.12.2011 and all consequent related orders.,,,,,

The inter-se-seniority list of Executive Engineer(Civil) shall also be subject to the outcome of OA No.3198/2016 pending in the Hon’ble,,,,,

CAT(PB), New Delhi and W.P(C) No.7346/2007 in Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and any other related Court Cases as decided & pending in",,,,,

various Courts.,,,,,

This issues with the approval of competent authority.â€​,,,,,

The applicant was shown at Sl. No.455. He contends that the very methodology adopted by the respondents in preparing the impugned seniority,,,,,

list is defective and contrary to the relevant rules. It is also stated that the 2012 Recruitment Rules contain a clause to the effect that the seniority,,,,,

fixed earlier shall not be touched, and in contravention of that, the impugned seniority list is published.",,,,,

We would have certainly appreciated the grievance of the applicant in case he was pushed down in the context of seniority or any service, to",,,,,

which he is otherwise entitled to, was not reckoned. Not a word is said that the applicant lost any place in the seniority. Further, he did not claim the",,,,,

seniority above any particular officer, much less did he implead anyone.",,,,,

During the course of arguments, it is urged that while in the order of promotion dated 01.01.2018, the applicant was shown against the panel year",,,,,

of 2001-2002, the same was not reflected in the seniority list. It needs to be pointed out that the parameters for fixation of the seniority are totally",,,,,

different from those that are required to be taken into account, while granting promotion. The panel year has no relevance for preparing of seniority",,,,,

list. The seniority of the applicant was reckoned from the date on which he assumed the charge on ad hoc basis on the post of EE, i.e. 21.04.2006. It",,,,,

is not even pleaded that he is entitled to reckon his seniority to the post of EE from any date, earlier to that.",,,,,

Net result is that (a) the applicant was not pushed down in terms of his seniority compared to the seniority assigned to him in the year 2011 and (b),,,,,

no EE who was promoted to that post subsequent to the applicant was placed above him in the impugned seniority list. Unless the applicant has any,,,,,

grievance on those aspects, he cannot challenge the seniority list just for academic purpose.",,,,,

We do not find any merit in the O.A. and accordingly dismiss the same.,,,,,

There shall be no order as to costs.,,,,,