´( 1ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.10 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2011 CC 7537/2011(From the judgement and order dated 17/11/2010 in CWP No. 9130/2009of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)DIRECTOR GEN.B.S.N.L.& ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSCEN.ADMIN.TRIBUNAL BENCH CHANDIGARH &ORS Respondent(s)IA 1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 11/05/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULYFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Aeltemesh Rein, Adv. Ms. Maheravish Rein, Adv. Mr. Aldanish Rein, Adv. Ms. Shamshravish Rein, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mrs Rani Chhabra,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. This petition filed by the Director General, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., a Government of India enterprise questioning the correctness of order dated 17.11.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court refusing to interfere with the interlocutory orders passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal(for short, the Tribunal) cannot but be described as a piece of frivolous litigation, and the same deserves to be dismissed at the threshold with costs. 2 The respondents, who are working as dailyregular mazdoor in Ambala circle of Bharat SancharNigam Ltd., successfully passed the departmentalcompetitive examination conducted in 2007-2008 forpromotion to the post of Telecom Technical Assistant.However, they were not allowed to undergo the trainingwhich is an integral part of the promotional process.This compelled the respondents to invoke thejurisdiction of the Tribunal. By an interim orderdated 1.12.2008, which was reiterated on 15.12.2008,the Tribunal directed the concerned authorities of theBharat Sanchar Nigam Limited to allow the respondentsto undergo the training which, as mentioned above, isan integral part of the promotional process. The second order was passed by the Tribunalby taking note of the consent given by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners herein. This isevident from the following extracts of order dated15.12.2008: "In view of the aforesaid submissions respectively made by both the parties, nothing survives for further consideration in the matter involved in this O.A. Accordingly, the parties hereto have requested that the present O.A. be disposed of with the directions that the respondents will allow the applicants to undergo training which will hold good for their induction on promotion as TTA against vacancies available in their own respective SSA in due course of time and the applicants will not stake any claim for promotion to the vacancies arising in other SSA areas based on their training as above. The request is granted and it is directed accordingly. No order as to costs." 3 The petitioners' challenged the orders of theTribunal in writ petition No.9130 of 2009 which wasdismissed by the High Court. We have heard learned counsel for the petitionersand carefully perused the record. In our view, theTribunal did not commit any error by issuing adirection that the respondents be allowed to undergothe training and the High Court rightly refused tointerfere with those orders. The special leave petition is accordinglydismissed. For filing a frivolous petition like thepresent one, the petitioners are saddled with cost ofRs.50,000/- which shall be deposited with the SupremeCourt Legal Services Committee within a period of onemonth from today. The petitioners shall be free torecover the amount of cost from the officer(s), whodecided to file such frivolous petition before thisCourt. (A.D. Sharma) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master