IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 24473 of 2002(S) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. R.SIVADASAN, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, EXTERNAL I TELECOM, ATTINGAL. 2. T.M.SALIM, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION MAINTENANCE (PCM) CENTRAL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. G.STEPHEN, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION MAINTENANCE TELECOM BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 11. 4. J.SUSEELA, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER (1/D), AMBALAMUKKU RLU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. K.S.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. P.JAYACHANDRAN, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, OBCMDF, CENTRAL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. V.SASIDHARAN, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, DISTRICT TELECOM TRAINING CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. G.THANKAPPAN, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, (ELE), CENTRAL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. O.P. NO. 24473/2002-S: 9. C.M.VISALAKSHI, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, E 10 B (MTCE) TELECOM BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. C.RAVINDRAN NAIR, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, CABLE CONSTRUCTION (SOUTH) POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SRI.PEARLY JOSE, SRI.S.VISHNU, SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY, SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, KERALA TELECOM CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL, TELECOM DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. 4. ALEXANDER M., JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, CTO., ALAPPUZHA. 5. ABRAHAM P.V., JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, C.T.O., KOTTAYAM. 6. HARIKUMAR.T.K., B.SC., JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, O/O.CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. HIFSUR RAHIMAN M.A., JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER (TELEPHONES), KAROIL HOUSE, NO.9/274, NEAR MUNICIPAL LIBRARY, TB ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. 8. UNNIKRISHNAN S., B.SC., JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. O.P. NO. 24473/2002-S: 9. SURESH BABU.B., JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, C.T.T.C. SANTHINAGAR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. REGHUTHAMAN NAIR.B., JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, CTO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 11. JAYAKUMAR.S., SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, SASTHA TOWERS, KOWDIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. JANAKI KRISHNAN, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, CTO, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN. 13. MOHANKUMAR G., JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, COMMERCIAL COMPUTER SECTION PLAMOODU, OFFICE OF THE D.G.M., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 14. SATHEESH CHANDRAN R., JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE S.B.T.T., ERNAKULAM. 15. K.J.STEPHEN, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, C.T.O., COCHIN. 16. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, C.T.O., KOLLAM. 17. ALI KOYA. N.P., SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, CTO., KAVARATHI - 682 555. BY SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,S.C, B.S.N.L. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 24473/2002: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 265/2000 DTD. 25/01/2000 BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DTD. 06/2000 FILED BY R1 TO R3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DTD. 24/07/2000. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/03/2002 IN O.A. NO. 265/2000 PASSED BY THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. STA/1-7/90/II PART 14 DTD. 18/0/1990 OF THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ANNEXURE A II OF GROUP B OFFICERS REVERTED. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ST-III/1-10/99 (PT.) (II) DTD. 19/11/1999 OF THE R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. ST-III/4-25/STS/2001 DTD. 29/06/2001 OF THE R.1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. RECTT/30-4/90 (II) DTD. 09/08/90 ISSUED BY THE R.1. //TRUE COPY// prv. K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== O.P.No.24473 of 2002 ======================== Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioners are Junior Telecom Officers, working under the first respondent. They cleared qualifying examination for promotion to that post held in the year 1993 for filling up the vacancies that arose in 1990. Since according to the competent authority, vacancies were not available in 1990 or 1991, they were promoted only with effect from 1992. The petitioners claimed that there were actually vacancies available to accommodate them in the year 1990. They came to know their position in the seniority list when the combined seniority lists of Junior Telecom Officers (J.T.O.) and Assistant Superintendent of Telegraph Traffic (ASTT) were published as per Annexures A5 and A8. The petitioners filed objections. Pursuant to the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, those objections were considered and rejected by Annexure A13. The petitioners moved the CAT by filing O.A.No.265 of 2000 OP24473/02 -: 2 :- challenging Annexure A13 as also Annexures A5 and A8 to the extent it was adverse against them. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioners before the Tribunal was that in view of Annexures A14, A15 and A16, there were sufficient number of vacancies available in the cadre of J.T.O. in the year 1990 to accommodate all of them. Those Annexures were orders promoting J.T.Os. to the next higher post of Telegraphic Engineer in TES Group B on officiating basis. The petitioners asserted that all the officiating promotions ordered as per those annexures were accepted by the incumbents, from Kerala Circle, they were never reverted and the same resulted in the creation of corresponding vacancies in the cadre of J.T.O. in Kerala. The petitioners pointed out that the assertion made in this regard in paragraph 4.8 of Ext.P1 original application was not denied or controverted by the respondents when they filed Ext.P2 reply statement before the C.A.T. 3. The point that arose for decision before the C.A.T. was whether vacancies were actually available in the cadre of J.T.O. in the year 1990. The Tribunal held that Annexures A14 and A15 do not relate to the promotion from Kerala circle. Though OP24473/02 -: 3 :- Annexure A16 was also considered by the C.A.T. the contention of the petitioners relying on Annexure A16 was not accepted. In the result, the O.A. was dismissed by Ext.P4 order holding that no vacancies were available in the year 1990 to accommodate the petitioners. This writ petition is filed challenging the said finding of the C.A.T. in Ext.P4 order. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the official respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners took us through Annexure A14, which would show that serial No.4 therein P.V.Marimma, is from Kerala circle. If she has actually accepted the officiating promotion and was never reverted, there will be one vacancy available in the year 1990. Annexure A15 shows that three J.T.Os. from Kerala circle have been promoted to the higher post. They also have accepted the officiating promotion and if they were not reverted, the same will create three more vacancies. Going by Annexure A16 we find that the promotees as per that order were to join duty before 31.12.1990 and the details regarding release, joining, etc. has to be reported before 7.1.1991. It means, the resultant vacancies in the J.T.O. cadre OP24473/02 -: 4 :- arose only in January, 1991. Therefore, those vacancies cannot be reckoned as vacancies of 1990. 6. In the result, from the materials on record, it would appear that there were at least four vacancies available in the cadre of J.T.O. in the year 1990 and there were large number of vacancies in the year 1991 as a result of the promotions under Annexures A14, A15 and A16. But the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the promotions under those Annexures being officiating promotions, after 179 days the incumbent will be reverted and therefore there will not be any substantive vacancies in the cadre of J.T.O. to accommodate the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners in answer submitted that the petitioners have a specific case that all these promotions were made after the D.P.C. met and on the instructions issued from the Headquarters, Delhi. So, the incumbents who were promoted continued in the promoted post without facing reversion. 7. In view of the above facts, we feel that as a result of Annexures A14, A15 and A16 whether there were actual vacancies available for promotion of the petitioners during the OP24473/02 -: 5 :- years 1990 and 1991 is a matter which has to be examined by the competent authority. In other words, the petitioners claim has not been properly considered with reference to the relevant materials and their contentions. So, we set aside Annexure A13 as also Ext.P4. The first respondent is directed to examine the case of the petitioners mentioned above as to whether there were four vacancies available during the year 1990 and whether there were 115 vacancies available in the year 1990 to accommodate the petitioners as J.T.Os. This the first respondent shall do within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the claim of the petitioners is upheld, they shall be considered for further consequential promotions also permissible as per the rules. The writ petition is allowed as above. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 14/3