Honble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member

1. This Review Application has been filed to review the common order dated 08.04.2010 in TA No. 48/2008 and to declare that the review applicant was regularly promoted as Assistant Director/Rajbhasha Adhikari from 18.08.1996 and grant such other further reliefs that are just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. M.A. No. 752/2011 filed by the review applicant for condonation of delay in filing this Review Application is allowed.

3. The applicant who joined as Hindi Translator Grade-I in the Madras Circle on 26.02.1990 was transferred to Regional Telecom Training Centre, Trivandrum, Kerala Circle, on 13.05.1994 as Senior Hindi Translator. O.A. No. 738/1995 (Annexure A-2) was allowed directing the respondents to consider the applicant for promotion on the date on which a vacancy arose upholding the vested right of the applicant for consideration of promotion on acquiring 3 years service qualification notwithstanding the transfer. She was promoted as Assistant Director (OL) in Kottayam SSA against a regular post on 05.08.1996. In T.A. No. 48/2008, she had sought a declaration that she is regularly promoted as Assistant Director (OL) [redesignated as Rajbasha Adhikari] applying special provision below column 12 of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2002, notwithstanding the supersession of those rules by the Recruitment Rules, 2005. The said T.A was allowed alongwith other cases by a common order dated 08.04.2010. The operative part of the said order is reproduced as under:

23. We have heard the counsel for the parties. From the facts of the case, it is clear that T.A.44, 46, 47 and 48 of 2008 are identical. All the applicants in these T.As were governed by the "Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002" promulgated on 24.12.2002. A special provision was incorporated in the former Recruitment Rules taking into consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the persons like the applicants. The said Recruitment Rules remained in force for more than 3 years till the "Rajbhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005" was issued in supersession of all the relevant Recruitment Rules in force. It is a well settled principle that the appointment/promotion of the employees are to be based or the existing Recruitment Rules as held by the Apex Court in Y.V. Rangaiahs case (supra) and B.L. Guptas case (supra). Both the Calcutta High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court also have decided the cases of the similarly placed employees and directed the respondents to promote them in accordance with the 2002 Rules. We, therefore, allow these T.As with the direction to the official respondents to promote the eligible applicants in these T.As as Assistant Director (OL) against the vacancies which have arisen before the promulgation of the "Rajabhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005". They may also be redesignated as Rajabhasha Adhikari from 2005. As regards the applicants in O.A.100/2009 are concerned, it is declared that they have their rightful claim only to those vacancies of Rajabhasha Adhikari which have arisen after the promulgation of the "Rajabhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules, 2005". They shall be promoted accordingly on the basis of their merit in the Limited Internal Competitive Examination in which they have qualified.

4. The review applicant contended that she was transferred to Kottayam as a regular promotee. She was not given officiating D.A. She was given allowances that were applicable to a regular promotee. She was also given the salary, pay and allowances of the Assistant Director while she was on leave for a period of 2 years. Since she was a regular promotee, she was not reverted though she had taken leave for a long period. Though no formal order for promotion as such was not passed, for all purposes, she was treated as a regularly promoted Assistant Director/Rajbasha Adhikari.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Facts of the case submitted by the applicant have not been contested by the respondents. In O.A. No. 738/1995 (Annexure A-2) the question was as to whether the transfer of the applicant from Madras Circle to Kerala Circle would take away the right of the applicant for reckoning the service rendered by her. Three years service was required for promotion. The stand taken by the respondents was that because of transfer, there is a break in service and the applicant did not have 3 years continuous service for promotion. That order was set aside and it was declared that the applicant was eligible to be considered for promotion as transfer would not take away her total seniority. Subsequently, when the Recruitment Rules, 2005 came into force, a further challenge was made before this Tribunal in T.A. No. 48/2008 wherein it was declared that the applicant is governed by the Recruitment Rules, 2002.

7. In these circumstances, the order passed in T.A. No. 48/2008 (Annexure A/10) alongwith the order passed in O.A. No. 738/1995 (Annexure A-2) will crystallize the right in favor of the applicant. It is only to be clarified that Annexure A-10 order in no way takes away the right already conferred in the applicant by Annexure A-2 order.

8. With the above clarification, the R.A. is dismissed.

(Dated, this the 09th February, 2012)