SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 15598 of 1996. D/d. 09.11.2000.

K. Sadasiva Rao - Appellant

Versus

Sectt., Ministry of Defence & Ors. - Respondent

Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 16 and 136 - Service law- Seniority - Private Respondents challenged seniority list on the ground that there is infirmity in matter of seniority and preparation of select list - Tribunal after considering the relevant materials held that prescribed procedure has not been followed- Directions given to redraw seniority list in accordance with prescribed procedure - Held finding of fact given by Tribunal could not be interfered with - Order of Tribunal upheld.

[Paras 2 and 3]

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - It was contended that since Mrs. K. Sharda Devi is appointed on regular basis it may not be proper for her to argue as a counsel on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. In the facts and circumstances, we permit her to argue this matter on behalf of the appellant.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The private respondents having approached the Tribunal indicating the infirmity in the matter of seniority and preparation of select list, the Tribunal considered the relevant materials and came to the conclusion that the procedure prescribed in paragraph 4(b) of the OM dated 24.12.1980 has not been followed. Though admitttedly vacancies arising during several years have been considered together notwithstanding the ordinary practice of having a select list for every year in respect of the vacancies arising for that year. The Tribunal therefore directed revision of the seniority list published on 12.11.1990 so as to be in conformity with paragraph 4(b) of the OM dated 24.12.1980 and thereafter granting the consequential relief if available to any of the private respondents. It is this order of the Tribunal which is being challenged in the present appeal. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal committed serious error in setting aside the seniority list that was published on 12.11.1990 inasmuch as such seniority list had been prepared duly in accordance with law and there was no infirmity in the same.

3. Be it stated that the appellant though was a party to the proceeding before the Tribunal, had not appeared before the Tribunal. Further the seniority list which had been prepared by the Dockyard Authorities, the said Dockyard Authority never assailed the order of the Tribunal. The findings of the Tribunal on questions of fact therefore must be held to be final and cannot be interfered with. On the conceded position that the panel had not been prepared year-wise as is required under Para 4(b) of OM dated 24.12.1980 in case where for reasons beyond the control of DPC could not have been held beyond a particular year even though vacancies arising during that year were available, the Tribunal rightly interfered with the seniority list drawn up and directed to redraw the seniority list in consonance with the provisions contained in para 4(b) of OM dated 24.12.1980.

4. In the aforesaid premises, we see no infirmity with the impugned direction of the Tribunal so as to be interfered with by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.