Dismissed

B N Vidyashankara v. Mrs Neelam Shekhawat Ors.

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2015CW/12049/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition challenging a CAA Tribunal order denying the petitioner seniority over a Scheduled Tribe respondent in the Administrative Officer cadre. The Court held the Tribunal correctly granted seniority based on the respondent's earlier substantive appointment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on merit as the Tribunal correctly determined the respondent's claim to seniority.

B N Vidyashankara Vs Mrs Neelam Shekhawat… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR

¶3

DB Civil Writ Petition No.12049/ 2014 B.N. Vidhyashankara Vs.

¶4

Mrs. Neelam Shekhaw at & ors. Date of Order :: 23/ 01/ 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE J.K. RANKA

¶5

Mr. CB Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

Instant writ petition is directed against order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dt.18/01/2011.

¶7

The writ petition has been filed after more than three years of the order of Tribunal but apart from delay, we find that the select panel was prepared by the competent authority for the post of Administrative Officer category wise. The petitioner, being a member of Open Category (OC) was placed at No.2 and at the same time, the respondent-Mrs.

¶8

Neelam Shekhawat was placed at No.1 in the ST Category as she was the only candidate selected and placed in the panel.

¶9

At the time of executing the panel prepared by the competent authority dt.29/11/1995, indisputably, the respondent, who belongs to ST category, was offered appointment on the post of Administrative Officer (for short, 'AO') in pursuance to Office Memorandum dt. 07/05/1996

¶10

¶11

and since then, she was uninterruptedly working on substantive basis and the present petitioner, who was respondent No.3 before the Tribunal, came to be appointed

¶12

as AO vide order dt.18/12/2000 and he joined the post on 25/01/2001. He was also appointed as AO from the panel prepared by the competent authority dt. 29/11/1995.

¶13

The question arose in respect of determination of their inter-se seniority and indisputably, the respondent, who was member of ST category and the only candidate in the panel and the present petitioner was at No.2 in the panel of open Category and taking note of availability of vacancy category-wise, the respondent was appointed as AO vide order dt. 07/05/1996 and since then working uninterruptedly on substantive basis and as regards the present petitioner is concerned, he was appointed as AO vide order dt.18/12/2000 pursuant to which he joined on 25/01/2001. Keeping these facts into consideration, obviously the petitioner could not claim himself senior to the respondent in the cadre of A.O..

¶14

The ld. Tribunal, after taking into consideration the

¶15

material on record, arrived to a conclusion that the respondent was entitled to claim seniority over and above the petitioner on the basis of her substantive appointment in the cadre of AO.

¶16

We have heard counsel for the petitioner and do

¶17

¶18

not find any error being committed by the Tribunal in passing

¶19

the order impugned in the instant proceedings.

¶20

Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of

¶21

merit, is hereby dismissed.

¶22

(J.K. Ranka), J.

¶23

(Ajay Rastogi), J.

¶24

Raghu

¶25

Cer t i f i cat e: Al l cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng e- mai l ed. Raghu, Sr . PA.

B N Vidyashankara v. Mrs Neelam Shekhawat Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B N Vidyashankara v. Mrs Neelam Shekhawat Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Ali Vs State Home Departmentors

Sunil Vs State Home Departmentors

R S R T C Jaipur Vs Badri Narain and Anr.

R S R T C and Anr. Vs Kishan Lal Yadav

Meetha Lal Vs Director Printing and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Bairwa Vs Director Printing and Anr.