OP (CAT) No.161 of 2019, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- K. Vinod Chandran
- V. G. Arun
- Judgment Date
- 2020-01-23
- Court Decision / Holding
- The petition is dismissed. The BSNL is directed to consider the respondent for promotion to SDE on completion of three years as JTO from 23.07.1996, with a notional promotion to Divisional Engineer after six years from the date of the notional SDE. Four months’ time is granted to identify disabled employees and to accommodate them in 3% vacancies on an All-India basis, with retirement benefits and any arrears to be revised in line with the notional promotions. Costs to be borne by the parties.
- Final Disposition
- Original petition dismissed; parties to bear their respective costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- M.G Panicker
- Union of India represented by the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Telecommunications, New Delhi
Respondents
- The Chairman cum Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi
- The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram
- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi, rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil)
- • Sri A. R. Dileep
- • Sri P. J. Joe Paul
- • Sri P. L. Venu Kumar
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri T. Sanjay
Case Synopsis & Summary
This case, heard by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court (Justices K. Vinod Chandran and V. G. Arun) on 23 January 2020, concerns OP(CAT) No.161 of 2019 challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order in OA No. 269/2015. The Tribunal had allowed the applicant’s claim for promotion to Sub Divisional Engineer (SDE) under the 3% disability quota provided by the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, relying on Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others (2016) 13 SCC 153. BSNL contended that a reference by a Division Bench was answered by the Supreme Court’s Larger Bench in Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Others, affirming Rajeev Gupta and rendering the issue not res integra; the 3% quota should be applied for promotions to vacancies even where there is no direct recruitment. The High Court did not find a reason to interfere with the Tribunal and upheld its directions, directing BSNL to consider the respondent for promotion to SDE after completion of three years as a JTO from 23.07.1996 (noting a pre-1996 test had been deleted). It also laid down that the next promotion to Divisional Engineer would be considered after six years from the notional SDE promotion. Four months was granted to identify eligible disabled employees for inclusion on 3% vacancies on an All-India basis, and payroll/retiral revisions were to be adjusted with any such promotions. The petition was dismissed with costs to the parties.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- res integra
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The applicants assert that the 3% disability quota under the 1995 Act must govern promotional avenues where vacancies arise in the absence of direct recruitment. They rely on the Tribunal’s acceptance of the 3% quota and the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Kumar Gupta decision (2016) 13 SCC 153, and argue that Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Others (Civil Appeal No.1567 of 2017) affirming Rajeev Gupta further solidifies a non‑ignorance of the quota for internal promotions. They protest any dilution of the quota and request expeditious implementation of the Tribunal’s directions including retrospective considerations and adjustment of retirement benefits if necessary.
Contentions of Respondents
BSNL submits that there was a reference by a Division Bench and that the Larger Bench decision in Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Others has affirmed Rajeev Gupta, rendering the issue not res integra; thus 3% quota should apply to vacancies, including those without direct recruitment. BSNL seeks time to identify eligible disabled personnel to be accommodated in 3% vacancies on an All-India basis and to complete the internal process. The respondents contend the Tribunal’s order is correct in principle but require time to implement and coordinate seniority, notional promotions, and pay/retirement revisions, given the administrative complexity.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others | (2016) 13 SCC 153 | Positive | Cited as the basis for allowing the OA and applying the 3% disability quota to promotions. |
| Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Others | Civil Appeal No.1567 of 2017 | Positive | Larger Bench affirmed Rajeev Gupta, supporting the non‑integra nature of the issue. |
| Civil Appeal No.521/2008 (Apex Court judgment referenced as Exhibit P4) | Civil Appeal No.521/2008 | Mentioned Only | Exhibit P4 is cited as an Apex Court judgment copy; content not explicitly relied upon in the reasoning. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against OP (CAT) No.161 of 2019, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.