Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Rajvir Singh vs Union Of India on 8 February, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. No.696/2009 New Delhi, this the 8th day of February, 2010 HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) HONBLE SH. SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A) 1. Shri Rajvir Singh, S/o Shri Chhotey Lal, R/o 28/18-A/77F/4, Gali No.2, Edgah Road, Bhola Nath Nagar, Extn. Shahdara, Delhi-110032. 2. Shri Jai Pal Singh, S/o Shri Vikram Singh, R/o House No.83, Pocket-17, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi-110085. 3. Shri Jagdish Prasad, S/o Shri Makkhan Lal, R/o 79/4B, Sector-2, DIZ Area, New Delhi-1. 4. Shri Madan Lal, S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, R/o D01011, Sector-1, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi-110062. 5. Shri Akhil Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Pati Ram Sinha, R/o C0748, D.A. Flat, Timarpur, Delhi-110052. 6. Shri Munna Lal, S/o Shri Ram Singh, R/o 530-A, Sector-III, R.K. Puram, Delhi-110022. 7. Shri Karam Vir Singh, S/o Shri Ranjit Singh, R/o C-58, D.A. Flats, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092. 8. Shri Ashish Kumar Singha, S/o Shri Ravindra Nath Singha, R/o 143, Shivani Apartment, I.P. Extn., Delhi-110092. 9. Shri Sohan Lal, S/o Shri Tara Chand, R/o 199, Asha Pushp Vihar, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. 10. Shri U.C. Varun, S/o Shri Dev Lal Varun, R/o 545-A, Sector-3, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. 11. Shri Pradeep Kumar, S/o Shri Lal Singh, R/o C-4/312, Pocket 14, DDA Flats, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Applicants By Advocate: Shri G. Lal. Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, M/o Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Director General (Works), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. Respondents By Advocate: Shri K.R. Sachdeva. O R D E R
By Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 11 applicants had initially filed this OA seeking a direction to the respondents to fix their seniority as Assistant Engineer (hereinafter referred to as AE) correctly on the basis of year-wise vacancies and promote them as Executive Engineers (hereinafter referred to as EE). However, at the time of arguments, counsel for the applicant made a statement at bar that he is not pressing the case for applicant No.10 and 11 as they were not promoted as a result of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as LDCE). It is submitted by the applicants that they had cleared the LDCE conducted by the UPSC in the year 1992 for the post of AEs. The vacancies pertained to 1989, 1990 and 1991. Total number of vacancies notified by the UPSC was 227, out of which 69 were meant for SC and 34 for ST whereas 15% of 227 vacancies works out to only 34. It is thus clear that 35 vacancies meant for the SC quota pertained to the backlog vacancies of 1989, 1990 and 1991. All the 35 candidates belonging to SC category qualified, but they were put at the bottom and were promoted as AEs vide order dated 16/17.9.1993 (page 31 at 34). In the seniority list also they were placed exactly at the end of the list whereas seniority ought to have been fixed on the basis of year-wise vacancies. Had it been done properly, all the applicants would have been promoted as EEs on the basis of DPC which was held on 8.1.2009.
2. They have further stated that subsequently when such examinations were conducted in 1991 and 2001, the seniority of SC/ST candidates who qualified the said examination was fixed on the basis of year-wise vacancies. Being aggrieved, applicants had given many representations but till 2000, no final seniority lists of AEs were issued. A provisional seniority list of AEs was issued in 2002 but since there were number of mistakes, representations were given by the applicants but of no avail. They have thus prayed that the OA may be allowed.
3. Respondents have opposed this OA. They have stated that the post of AE (Civil) and (Electrical) in the CPWD is filled 50% by promotions from JEs having 6 years of regular service and 50% by LDCE from JEs having 4 years of regular service. The LDCE was conducted by the UPSC in 1992. While sending the list, UPSC had recommended for placement of candidates. Initially result of 149 candidates on Civil side was declared on 6.9.1993, out of which 114 were General and 35 SC, but on 18.7.1994 a supplementary list of 78 General candidates was furnished. All the candidates who figured in the supplementary list were placed en-block below the last candidate of the first list of UPSC in the seniority list of AEs published in 2002.
4. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in its judgment dated 18.9.1992 in OA No. 605/1987 had directed the respondents to follow the 40 point roster for each batch of vacancies filled up in November, 1983, December, 1983 and subsequently and include the backlog of carry forward of reserved vacancies also subject to the condition that not more than 50% of the vacancies of each batch should be filled up by Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates for the panel of 1982. Moreover, the applicants should be given notional promotion as Assistant Engineers in their turn in the panel against the reserved vacancies of each batch so reckoned. Similar judgments were given by the Jodhpur Bench in OA No. 209/2003 in the case of Shri Ram Niwas Meena Vs. U.O.I. & Others and by the Principal Bench in OA No. 1474/1995 in the case of Shri S.K. Das and Others Vs. U.O.I. & Other. They have admitted that seniority cannot be assigned on the basis of result of examination conducted by UPSC but on the basis of instructions issued by the nodal department of Government of India, i.e., DOP&T. However, the relevant file on which UPSCs communication is purported to have been examined, is not traceable. Efforts are being made to reconstruct the same by approaching all concerned, i.e., UPSC, Regional Offices of CPWD etc. with regard to LDCE held in 1992 in their record.
5. Counsel for the respondents produced copy of the order dated 7.9.2009 passed in OA No. 1443/2009 in the case of Inderjeet Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Others on the same issue whereby respondents were directed to treat the OA as a representation and decide the same by passing a reasoned order within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Counsel for the respondents stated that the same order be passed in this case also as file would have to be reconstructed before passing final orders.
6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings as well.
7. Since it is admitted by the respondents that OA No. 1443/2009 is also on the same issue and the same has been disposed of on 7.9.2009 with a direction to the respondent to pass speaking orders in view of the fact that the record is not available with respondents and it is required to be reconstructed, therefore, without going into the merits of the case, this OA is also disposed of at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondents to consider this OA itself as a representation and decide the same by passing a reasoned order within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. OA stands disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.
(SHAILENDRA PANDEY) (MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rakesh