Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J). The applicant has impugned Office Memorandum issued by the respondents, Department of Telecommunications dated 12.04.2004 whereby final seniority list of Executive Engineer (Civil) as on 08.04.2004 had been published. He has been given rank No. 280, showing his date of appointment as 11.09.1995 and the date of promotion as Executive Engineer, as 15.12.1998. Shri V.S.R. Krishna, counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that in so far as the grievance of applicant is concerned, the Department had not taken notice of his real and sustainable claims, since he has not been given a position comparable to his colleagues, who had partaken in the Engineering Services Examination of 1989 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and essentially he was entitled to a position on the basis of merit recognised, as basis for his seniority. With reference to two individuals, it is pointed out that such benefits have been extended to them and there is an element of discrimination. Mr. Krishna invites our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pilla Sitaram Patrudu & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (JT 1996 (4) SC 731) and especially Paragraph 3 thereof wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that persons, who are selected by direct recruitment, are entitled to get seniority as determined on the basis of the examination held and is not to surrender his position to recruitees who were selected in subsequent processes of selection. It is submitted that the facts in the case decided by the Supreme Court are similar to the facts in the present O.A. Applicants appointment was delayed for no fault of his and he is entitled to a ranking, in consonance with his counterparts, who had obtained selection in the 1989 Examination. It is contended that the differential treatment has violated principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution.
2. However, after hearing the respondents, and after going through the factual details, we are not in a position to award the reliefs, as prayed for. It is to be pointed out that when a seniority list is subjected to challenge, inter alia, highlighting claim for a higher positioning, necessarily the affected persons have to be brought on record, as the ultimate decision is likely to affect them. Therefore, it will be difficult for the Tribunal to grant reliefs even if it is possible to assume that there is substance in the submissions made on behalf of the applicant.
3. The respondents have taken a stand that the applicant had not disclosed the full details, and it may not be possible for him to escape with a plea that he had no hand, in getting his appointment delayed. It is conceded true that he had been successful in the Examination, held in the year 1989. He was included in the merit list but he had defaulted to forward the details to the respondent Department to complete the verification steps, as were required before conferment of appointment. Ms. Satya Siddiqui, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, had adverted to letters repeatedly addressed to the applicant, the first of which was on 25.11.1992 (Annexure R-3). He had been informed that while sending the attestation forms duly filled up, he had not affixed his photographs in the appropriate space provided. By the letter, he had been required to forward four copies of his photographs duly attested by a Government officer.
4. Again, during October, 1994, he had been required by Annexure R-4 to forward the photographs, obviously since he had kept them back. The applicant had made available the photographs only far later, by Annexure R-5, in the year 1995. This resulted in a position whereby there was delay in issuing appointment orders to him and it is pointedly suggested that the applicant had rather been undecided about accepting his new job consequent to his selection as he was already well placed in the State Government service.
5. Although Mr. Krishna submits that as could well be gatherable from Annexure R-1 communication from the Ministry of Railways, that full details are to be presumed as sent over to the respondents, and there was no laches on the part of the applicant, and perhaps the attestation forms might have been tampered with, we are not prepared to accept the story as presented, because official acts are to be presumed as having been done properly and the repeated letters addressed to the applicant would indicate that as a matter of fact there was default on him. The forwarding authority was not expected to subject the application to any scrutiny. It is also relevant that when appointment orders had been issued to the applicant, he had requested further time to join and three months time had been granted and he had, in fact, joined service on the last possible date.
6. In the above circumstances, we do not think, that the judgment in Pilla Sitaram Patrudus case (supra) is to be bodily lifted and applied here. The reference to other two individuals is also distinguishable on facts. The great delay in responding to intimation for employment is not possible to be easily explained away. Therefore, the plea of the applicant that the seniority list of Executive Engineers has to be appropriately modified, so as to confer on him further advantage, cannot be accepted.
7. Promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer is only after clearance by DPC and one is expected to put in minimum qualifying service. Persons who are now positioned in the rank list above the applicant, in fact, had come to the cadre earlier than him. The relevancy of a claim for antedating the appointment as an Assistant Executive Engineer, thereby becomes obliterated as the seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineer is expected to take notice of the date on which a particular member had entered the cadre. As far as the applicant is concerned, he could not have pressed for any change in the date and, as a matter of fact, some relaxation had been extended to him, as the counsel for respondents submits. He cannot have the best of two worlds, viz. continuing in state service, and claiming seniority in the new post to which he was actually appointed on a far later date than his counterparts. We find that the application has no merit. It is dismissed. No costs. (MRS. NEENA RANJAN) (M. RAMACHANDRAN) MEMBER (A) VICE CHAIRMAN (J) `SRD