Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
V P Mohod vs Archoelogical Survey Of India on 8 July, 2022
1 O.A.No. 260/00091of 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00091 of 2017
Reserved on 07.07.2022 Pronounced on 08.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. DEVENDRA CHAUDHRY, MEMBER (A)
THE HON'BLE MR. SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
V.P. Mohod, aged about 45 years, S/o. Sri Pralad Rao
Mohod, presently working as Sr. Horticulture,
Assistant O/o the Deputy Superintending
Horticulture Survey of India, Horticulture
Archaeological Divisional, No-IV, Bhubaneswar-7.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through its Secretary,
Ministry of Culture, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Govt. of India,
Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi-
110011.
3. The Chief Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of
India, Janpath, New Delhi-110011.
4. The Dy. Superintending Horticulture,
Archaeological Survey of India, Horticulture
Divisional No-4, Purattava Nivas, Tosali Plaza
Apartment, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar-751007.
5. Sri P.K Chaudhary, Asst. Superintending
Horticulturist, O/o the Dy. Superintending
Horticulture, Archaeological Survey of India,
Horticulture Divisional No-4, Purattava Nivas,
2 O.A.No. 260/00091of 2017
TosaliPlaza Apartment, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar-
751007.
6. Sri Prasenjit Ghosh, Asst. Superintending
Horticulturist, O/o the Dy. Superintending
Horticulture, Archaeological Survey of India,
Horticulture Division No-II, Safdurjung Tomb, New
Delhi-110003.
......Respondents
For the Applicant : Mr. D.K.Mohanty, Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. S.B.Mohanty, Counsel
ORDER
Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J):
The applicant, an SC candidate, was initially appointed to the post of Horticulture Asst. Gr-I on 14.12.1995 under direct recruitment quota. He was promoted to the post of Sr. Horticulture Assistant w.e.f. 10.10.2005 by way of seniority-cum-fitness on the recommendation of DPC. As per the Gradation List of Sr. Horticulture Assistant, issued on 11.11.2009, he was placed at Sl. No. 8. Ld. Counsel for the applicant claiming that basing upon the DoP&T O.M. dated 02.07.1997 (Annexure-A/4),promotion to the post of Assistant Superintending Horticulturist (in short ASH) was effected earlier w.e.f. 1997 by applying roster based reservation, the applicant submitted representation on 24.12.2015 for consideration of his case for 3 O.A.No. 260/00091of 2017 promotion to ASH against SC Roaster Point stating that as per the roster point the next vacancy to the said post will go in favour of SC category. Respondents rejected the claim of the applicant being not authentic, however, given opportunity to prove its authenticity by document, if any. It appears that the applicant resubmitted his representation and, subsequently, approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 726/2016, which was disposed of by this Tribunal with direction to the respondents to consider the representation. Consequently, respondents considered the representation and, vide impugned order dated 23.01.2017 (Annexure-A/10) decided that the applicant is not due for promotion against the quota reserved for SC category. Hence, the applicant has filed this O.A. with the following reliefs:
(i) To quash the order dt. 23.01.2017 under Annexure-
A/10.
(ii) To direct the respondents to promote the applicant in the post of Asst. Superintending Horticulturist as per roster point reservation of SC category at Sr No.15 retrospectively in view of OM dt. 02.07.1997 under Annexure A/4.
(iii) To direct the respondents to pay the applicant all his service and financial benefits retrospectively.
(iv) To pas any other appropriate order......"
2. Respondents filed their counter inter alia stating that there are only three sanctioned post of ASH in Archaeological Survey of India, 4 O.A.No. 260/00091of 2017 which are filled up 100% by promotion. The reservation roster is prescribed for the post in a cadre where the sanctioned strength is two or more but less than 14, which shall be applicable in the present case.
As per the roster, in respect of post filled up by promotion the point No. 7 falls against SC category and point No. 14 for the ST category and the reservation shall be provided by rotation on the basis of 14 point roster. Since, the post reserved for SC category was already consumed on the appointment of Sri H.P.Verma against the reserved quota. The vacancy which would arise up to the 14th point shall be filled up under the unreserved quota and one Sri Naresh Chand, although belongs to SC category, he being senior to the applicant was promoted as ASH against the unreserved quota on basis of merit. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the representation of the applicant was duly considered and speaking order dated 23.01.2017 was communicated to him clarifying that he is not due for promotion against the quota reserved for SC category and his case shall be considered as per his seniority. It is further submitted that, in the meantime, the applicant has been promoted to the post of ASH and he has accepted the same unconditionally and assumed the charge on 27.03.2019. Hence, as such, there is no cause of action for adjudication by this Tribunal. 5 O.A.No. 260/00091of 2017
3. Applicant has filed rejoinder, which has been taken into consideration.
4. According to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the applicant is entitled to the relief prayed for in this O.A. because the respondents rejected the case without considering the true merit of the matter inasmuch as Point Nos. 7 and 15, as per the post based roster, meant for SC category and Point No. 14 is meant for ST category. If the version of the respondents is taken to be correct that one Sri H.P.Verma was promoted and adjusted against Sl. No. 7, roster point at Sl. No. 15 still remains against which the applicant could have been promoted. It has been stated that the 14 point roster is applicable for direct recruitment and not for promotion. The reservation roster clearly prescribes for the post in a cadre where sanctioned strength is 2 or more but less than 14 shall be applicable in the present case and, therefore, gross injustice was caused to the applicant in the decision making process in the matter. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the applicant has in the meantime has been promoted to the post of ASH. The argument advanced is on conjecture and surmises without any basis because the roster is maintained and filled up as per the extant rules. The case of the 6 O.A.No. 260/00091of 2017 applicant was duly considered with reference to the applicable roster point/DoP&T O.M. and taking into consideration sanctioned/vacancy position in the grade of ASH and, there being no illegality, the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed in the O.A. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
5. We have given careful consideration to the rival contentions made by both sides and perused the materials on records. Facts remains that the applicant has in the meantime promoted to the post of ASH. It is seen that the respondents rejected the grievance of the applicant on the ground that there are only three sanctioned posts of ASH in Archaeological Survey of India, which are to be filled up 100% by promotion. The reservation roster is prescribed for the post in a cadre where the sanctioned strength is two or more but less than 14, which shall be applicable in the present case. As per the roster, in respect of post filled up by promotion the point No. 7 falls against SC category and point No. 14 for the ST category and the reservation shall be provided by rotation on the basis of 14 point roster. Since, the post reserved for SC category was already consumed on the appointment of Sri H.P.Verma against the reserved quota. The vacancy which would arise up to the 14th point shall be filled up under the unreserved quota 7 O.A.No. 260/00091of 2017 and one Sri Naresh Chand, although belongs to SC category, he being senior to the applicant was promoted as ASH against the unreserved quota on basis of merit.
6. It is seen that the respondents considered the representation of the applicant and rejected the same under Annexure-A/10 dated 23.01.2017 on the ground as under:
WHEREAS the representation of Shri V.P. Mohod has been examined vis-à-vis the extant instructions issued by the DoP&T with regard to reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of promotion and the following observations are made in this regard:
(i) Whereas there being only three sanctioned posts of ASH in ASI which are filled up 100% by the method of promotion, the reservation roster prescribed for posts in a cadre where the sanctioned strength is 2 or more but less than 14 shall be applicable in the present case. The extracts of instructions issued by the Government in this regard are enclosed.
(ii) As per the above said Roster in respect of post filled up by promotion, the point no. 7 falls against SC Category and Point No 14 for the ST Category And the reservation shall be provided by rotation on the basis of the said 14 point roster.
(iii) As regards the post of ASH in ASI, the post reserved for SC Category has already been consumed on the appointment of Shri H.P. Verma against the reserved quota. A copy of the Minutes of the DPC which had recommended the promotion of Shri H.P. Verma is enclosed.
(iv) Therefore, the vacancies which would arise up to the 14thpoint (reserved for ST) shall be filled up under the unreserved quota.8 O.A.No. 260/00091of 2017
(v) Shri Naresh Chand who belongs to SC Category and is senior to the applicant was, therefore, promoted as ASH against the unreserved quota on merit.
NOW, THEREFORE, in the light of the above position, the Competent Authority after due consideration of the representation submitted by Shri VP Mohod, Sr. Horticulture Assistant has decided that he is not due for promotion against the quota reserved for SC Category. However, he shall be considered for promotion as per his seniority.
From the above it appears that, according to the respondents, point no. 7 falls against SC Category and Point No 14 for the ST Category. Thereafter, point no. 15 falls against the SC category as per the Post based roster for promotion. According to the respondents, the post reserved for SC category has already been consumed on promotion of Sri H.P.Verma against the reserved quota at Sl. No. 7. It is the case of the applicant that the reservation roster prescribed for the post in a cadre where sanctioned strength is 2 or more but less than 14 shall be applied in his case and as per the roster in respect of the post in question the point no. 7 falls against SC category and point no. 14 against ST category and the reservation shall be provided by rotation on the basis of 14 point roster. The respondents in the order of rejection so also in the counter did not whisper anything relating to roster point number 15. It is the specific grievance of the applicant that as per roster based reservation in promotion cadre of SC at Sl. No. 7 which is meant for Sl. No. 1 i.e. Sri H.P.Verma since then no SC candidate 9 O.A.No. 260/00091of 2017 promoted to the post of Asst. Superintending Horticulturist as per the post based roster dated 02.07.1997 (Annexure-A/4) but Sl. No. 8 was promoted to the said post on seniority basis. As per record, one post of Asst. Superintending Horticulturist is vacant and, thus, as per the principle set out under Annexure-A/4. next roster based reservation is at Sl. No. 15 and Sl. No. 9 was meant for SC category whereas the respondents filled up the post meant for SC (Sl. No. 10) and thereafter Sl. No. 11 which is in violation of the DoP&T order dated 02.07.1997 (Annexure-A/4). Be that as it may, the order of rejection is conspicuously silent on the above aspect especially relating to the roster point at Sl. No. 15. Every employee has genuine expectation to achieve career advancement by way of climbing the ladder of promotion. When the applicant had apprehended that he has been treated shabbily in matter of applying the reservation roster, it is expected that the authority concerned should not leave any room for doubt in the mind of an employee that his case has not been dealt into in its proper perspective. On the above count, the irresistible conclusion would be that the order of rejection was passed without due application of mind by meeting/answering the points specifically raised by the applicant. In other words, the order of rejection is arbitrary and hence illegal. Therefore, the order of rejection under Annexure-A/10 dated 23.01.2017 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to Respondent No. 2 to reconsider 10 O.A.No. 260/00091of 2017 the matter afresh after due opportunity to the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, this O.A. stands allowed to the above extent by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) (DEVENDRA CHAUDHRY) Member (Judicial) Member (Admn.) RK/PS