IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 27253 of 2005(S) -------------------------- OA.142/2004 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K. SAMUEL, S/O. LATE KANAKARAJ, FOREMAN OF STORES, TRISUL INSTALLATION NAVAL TEAM, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-682 004. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF FOR PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF LOGISTIC SUPPORT, INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS,MINISTRY OF DEFENCE(NAVY) DIRECTORATE OF LOGISTIC SUPPORT, `C' WING SENA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 011. 3. THE DIRECTOR, TRISHUL INSTALLATION NAVAL TEAM, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-682 004. 4. THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. ADV. SRI.TPM .IBRAHIM KHAN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 27253/05 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.142/2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 15.9.2004, FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A.142/2004 DATED 10.9.2004. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED TO EXT.P2 IN O.A.142/2004 DATED 18.09.2004 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.6.2005 IN O.A.NO.142/2004 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 20.1.2005 ISSUED BY MATERIAL SUPERINTENDENT, MATERIAL ORGANIZATION TO THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 27253 OF 2005-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 2nd January, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.142/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The respondents herein were the respondents in that O.A. The petitioner joined service under the respondents on 19.9.1966 as Waiter. He was promoted as Assistant Store Keeper on 4.9.1977. He was further promoted as Store Keeper on 17.2.1981. Still later, he was posted as Senior Store Keeper on ad hoc basis on 26.11.1981. He worked in that post up to 27.2.1992. Later, he was promoted on regular basis as Senior Store Keeper on 28.2.1992. Based on his seniority in that cadre, he was further promoted as Foreman of Stores on 10.2.2003. The service rendered by him as ad hoc Senior Store Keeper between 26.11.1981 and 27.2.1992 was not counted for the purpose of seniority. Therefore, he represented. His representation was rejected by Annexure-A5 communication produced along with Ext.P1 O.A. His further representations also met with the same fate, as evident from Annexures-A8 WPC 27253/2005 2 and A9. Challenging those orders and seeking consequential relief, to recast his seniority in the cadre of Senior Store Keeper and to grant him further promotion based on that revised seniority, the O.A was filed. 2. The respondents resisted the application, producing Ext.R1 communication, as per which volunteers were called for ad hoc promotion as Senior Store Keeper. The said communication specifically stated that “The candidates should be told clearly that the promotion is purely on ad hoc basis and the service rendered in these grades will not be counted for promotion to the next higher grade.” In view of the said specific instruction, the ad hoc promotees were not granted seniority. So, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the O.A. 3. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and held as follows: “8. The next point is about the sustainability of the claims made by the applicant for counting the ad hoc services for seniority. As mentioned above, the offer of appointment makes it amply clear about ineligibility of the service rendered for purposes like seniority, promotion etc. His regular promotion orders were issued on 5.12.91, reckoning his seniority in the All India seniority list as a Store Keeper. The promotion was made after DPC. His designation as Store Keeper and not as Senior Store Keeper was reflected in the promotion orders and he did not object to the appellation. Perhaps, the most compelling argument against his claim is that period of appointment on volunteer basis and not on seniority/merit if considered for the purpose of seniority would work injuriously to the interests of those officers who did not volunteer for such appointments.” WPC 27253/2005 3 4. This writ petition is filed, challenging the above view taken by the Tribunal. It is elementary that an ad hoc promotee cannot get seniority in the promoted post with effect from the date of such ad hoc promotion, especially when such promotion was ordered from among the persons who volunteered to work in the higher post. The promotion was not made based on assessment of eligibility or merit. In view of the above position, we find nothing wrong with the finding of the C.A.T. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner worked for 11 years on ad hoc basis. But, we notice that the petitioner stood to gain by the ad hoc promotion. Further, the promotion was not granted based on seniority or merit, but only because the petitioner volunteered to work. Such a promotee cannot be granted seniority with effect from the date he was promoted on ad hoc basis. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Nm/