IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 32117 of 2006(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. P.T.GANGADHARAN, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 51 YEARS, SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., THANALUR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, MALAPPURAM, SSA KERALA CIRCLE. 2. DEEPA.V.P., SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., FAROKE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, FAROKE, SSA KERALA CIRCLE. 3. T.C.CHENNAN, SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (ADMN), BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., C.T.O., CALICUT-2, SSA KERALA CIRCLE. 4. M.CHANDRAN, SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., S.D.O.T., VITHURA, SSA KERALA CIRCLE. 5. K.K.SANIL KUMAR, SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., DPETM SATELLITE, STSR, KAVARATTI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., 9TH FLOOR, STATEMAN HOUSE, CANNOT CIRCLE, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION, ROOM NO.210, SANCHAR BHAVAN, ASOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. BY ADV. SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY, SC, BSNL FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. BSNL NO. 412-20/2006 DATED 21.7.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P2 TRUE RELEVANT PAGE OF LETTER DATED 6.11.1998 FOR CONDUCTING EXAMINATION ON 20.4.1999 AND 21.4.1999 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 412-26/2006 DATED 15.11.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.10.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.10.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.10.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 32177 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are Sub Divisional Engineers with BSNL. They have been given senior time scale in the cadre after they passed the test qualification in the examination conducted by the BSNL in 2000. Senior counsel for the petitioners contended that six years of experience and test qualification are the requirements for getting senior time scale. Even though petitioners have longer period of service to their credit in their cadre, senior time scale is delayed on account of delay in completion of the test by BSNL. Standing counsel appearing for the BSNL submitted that matter was taken to CAT, and pursuant to CAT order test was conducted in November, 2000 and the result published in September, 2001. According to him, there is no deliberate delay on the part of the BSNL in conducting the test. I do not think the relief sought for by the petitioners, that is, retrospectivity for the senior time scale granted to them, can be allowed because test qualification is a requirement for grant of senior time scale. This Court cannot assume 2 that petitioners would have passed the test, had the test been conducted within six years f their completion of service in the cadre. Therefore the qualification acquired by the petitioners, which is a requirement for giving senior time scale, cannot be granted to the petitioners with retrospective effect. Moreover large number of people are affected on account of delay in the conduct of the departmental test and only a few persons have approached this Court and are seeking relief for retrospective effect. The contention of counsel for the petitioners that there is inordinate delay in the conduct of examination cannot be accepted because CAT has not prescribed time limit for completion of examination and BSNL's case is that having regard to national level operation and other administrative work, the conduct of examination and publication of result within three years of date of order of CAT cannot be termed as excessive delay or neglect on the part of the company. When the CAT did not fix any time limit for completion of test and even after BSNL unduly delayed the matter, petitioners did not approach the CAT or this Court for fixing time frame for conduct of examination. In the circumstances, I do not think petitioners can say 3 that there is inordinate delay in the conduct of examination and consequently they can seek relief in the form of retrospective grant of senior time scale. W.P. therefore fails and is dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4