Sh. Alok Namdev and Ors. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and Ors.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 03.08.2022 whereby the Tribunal has listed the original application for final hearing on 01.09.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject examination notification dated 21.04.2022 is for holding the examination for vacancies upto 31.12.2021. Learned counsel contends that the examination is sought to be held contending that the examination is only for the vacancies of the year 2021 whereas there were vacancies available in the year 2018. He submits that petitioners were eligible for the 2018 vacancies, however, no examination was 2022:DHC:3209-DB W.P(C) 12101/2022 2 held for the vacancies that arose in the year 2018 and thereafter till the subject notification. Learned counsel submits that in case the examination is held for the 2021 vacancies and subsequently it is discovered that there were vacancies in the year 2018 then the petitioners are likely to be prejudiced in so far as their seniority is concerned.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent disputes that there are any vacancies of the year 2018. Learned counsel submits that a detailed counter affidavit was filed before the Tribunal indicating that the subject examination is being held only for the 2021 vacancies and that there are no vacancies of the period prior thereto.

4. It is noticed that the Tribunal in its order dated 03.08.2022 has specifically referred to the statement made in the counter affidavit that the subject examination is being held for vacancies from 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021. The Tribunal has held that in view of the specific averment in the counter affidavit there was no reason to hold that the examination was being held for vacancies for years other than 2021, however, the Tribunal has further directed that the respondents may go ahead with the scheduled examination subject to ensuring that the examination is only for the vacancies of a single year i.e. 2021 and not for the previous year. The Tribunal has further directed that if at any stage it came to the notice of the respondents or it was determined that there were vacancies for the year prior to 2021, the respondents would be legally bound to hold the examination separately for those years.

5. Since there is a categorical direction of the Tribunal that if it is determined that there are vacancies available for a previous year W.P(C) 12101/2022 3 separate examinations for the same would he held, we are of the view that the impugned order does not warrant any interference particularly since the matter is already listed before the Tribunal for final hearing on 01.09.2022.

6. The apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the petitioners that in case there are vacancies for previous year and separate examination is held then the seniority of the petitioners is liable to be affected is too far-fetched an argument for the reason that firstly there has to be a determination that there are vacancies available. Secondly an examination for the same has to be held; thirdly the petitioners have to be qualified for taking those examination and fourthly the petitioners have to be successful in the examination for any prejudice to be caused to them. At this stage we are of the view that no such protective or interim order is required to be passed in the facts and circumstances of this case.

7. In view thereof we find no merit in the petition.

8. The petition is dismissed.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. AUGUST 22, 2022 rk