MARY JOHNY v. UNION OF INDIA
vidhipandit.com/case/sc-s-1995-6-316-317
Decision dates shown here are day-precision where the judgment's own text states a date the extractor is confident in, and year only otherwise -- never a fabricated day. See the editorial policy for how dates are extracted.
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
Held
In view of Note (i) Rule 2 of the A.I.R. (Group 'C' Posts) Recruitment (Second Amendment) Rules, 1988, though the A.I.R. and F Doordarshan were bifurcated, as regards the Group 'C' employees enumerated therein, they can be promoted and transferred within the region on the basis of the common seniority list. [317-F-G)
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
A
DECEMBER 7, 1995
B
Se1Vice Law :
A.I.R. (Group 'C' Posts) Reauitment (Second Amendment) Rules, 1988: c Transfe.-Group 'C' employees working in Doordarshan Kendrtr- Promoted and transferred to Akashwani within the same region-Held, employees in common seniority lists are liable to be transferred within the region.
D The appellant, a Group 'C' employee in the Doordarshan Kendra of the 'Maharashtra, Goa, Dadar-Nagar Haveli' region, challenged her promotion and transfer from Doordarshan Kendra to Akashvani, within the same region. Her case was that in the year 1976 when Doordarshan was separated from All India Radio (Sound Scheme), she bad opted to remain in Doordarshan Kendra. The Tribunal rejected her petition. Aggrieved, the E appellant filed the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11816 of 1995. G From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.95 of the Central Ad- ministrative Tribunal, Bombay in 0.A. No. 547 of 1989.
N.B. Shetye and AM. Khanwilkar for the Appellant.
H K. Lahiri, B. Krishna Prasad and K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondents. 316
MARY JOHNY v. U.0.1. 317
Judgment
The following Order of the Court was delivered : A
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated 13th February, 1995 passed by the the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in OA No. 547/89. B The appellant is questioning her prom"'ion and transfer from Door- darshan to Akashwani. According to the e;ipellant, in the year 1976 when the Doordarshan Kendra was separated from All India Radio (A.LR.) [sound scheme], he had opted to remain in Doordarshan Kendra. Conse- quently, he is governed by the instructions issued in the Manual by the C Director General of Doordarshan Kendra. The State has relied upon the Rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, viz., A.LR. [Group 'C' Posts] Recruitment (Second Amendment) Rules, 1988 which came into force w.e.f. 23rd May, 1988. Note [i] to Rule 2 provides thus :
"Common Seniority lists will be maintained for clerk Grade/ D Storekeeper/Reception Officer (Junior)/Caretakers working in All India Radio/Doordarshan Kendra Stations and offices located in a State of a Group of States and Union Territories as indicated below and promotions and transfers shall be made within a State or group of states and Union Territories on the basis of the said list."
In the Schedule annexed to the Rules, it is mentioned in item No. 9 that in "Maharashtra, Goa, Dadar-Nagar Haveli" Station Director, All India Radio, Bombay is the competent authority to promote and transfer the can- didates w'thin the State or a group of State and Union Territories on the basis of the said list. In other words, though the A.LR. and Doordarshan Kendra were bifurcated, as regards the cadre relating to Clerical Grade, Store- Keeper/Reception Officer (Junior)/Caretakers working in A.LR./Doordar- shan Kendra Stations and offices located within the aforestated region, they can be promoted on transfer under common seniority list maintained and they are liable to be transferred within the region. It is not in dispute that the ap- G pellant was transferred within the region.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0