MARY JOHNYversusUNION OF INDIA

A                                MARY JOHNY
                                      v.
                                UNION OF INDIA

                               DECEMBER 7, 1995

B                (K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARlA, JJ.]

            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

          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)

            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

       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          E
         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     F
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.