Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rakesh Chandra Bahukhandi & Ors. vs Delhi Jal Board & Others. Respondents on 23 November, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
TA No. 1051/2009
New Delhi, this the 23rd day of November, 2009
Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J)
Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member(A)
Rakesh Chandra Bahukhandi & Ors. Applicants
(By Advocates: Sh. Kunwar C. M. Khan, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Koli,
Mr. Vikas Singh with Mr. Rajesh Kumar for M/s.
Kunwar & Co. )
Versus
Delhi Jal Board & Others. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Nishakant Pandey for Delhi Jal Board
None for others).
O R D E R
Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) By virtue of this TA the applicants have challenged the notification dated 22.09.1997 whereby Recruitment and Promotion Regulations of 04.01.1982 have been amended with the approval of the UPSC.
2. A brief factual matrix transpires that cadres of Bacteriologist and Chemist were common feeder categories for the post of Assistant Chief Water Analyst (ACWA) and a common seniority list was maintained. In 1985 through Resolution No.696 dated 15.10.1985 rules have been amended to the extent that quota for Chemist has been set out in the light of total cadre strength of 80:20 for Bacteriologist and Chemist for promotion to the post of ACWA. However, earlier in 1986 when UPSC had not approved the amended Regulations, which were approved in 1997 and notified on 22.09.1997, have been resorted to. Applicants have also been promoted in the interregnum as ACWA. Their grievance is that once there was no ratio earlier the applicants being senior-most Bacteriologist in the unified seniority list have not been considered for promotion. It is also stated that there is no logic or reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved in amending the recruitment rules which have foreclosed the promotional avenues of the applicants and their chances of promotion have been diminished.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Delhi Jal Board would vehemently oppose the contention. It is stated that being a policy decision Recruitment Regulations, which earlier prescribed promotion to the post of ACWA from amongst Bacteriologist and Chemist with five years regular service and other qualification, have been amended. It is further stated that promotional avenues of Assistant Bacteriologist to the post of Bacteriologist were considerably high as compared to that of Assistant Chemist to Chemist as there were only seven posts constituting the feeder cadre for six posts of Bacteriologist as against 60 Assistant Chemist constituting the feeder cadre for promotion to the 19 posts of Chemist. Accordingly the promotional avenues of Assistant Chemist to that of Chemist were 30% and the promotional avenues of the Assistant Bacteriologist to the post of Bacteriologist were 90%. In order to remove the invidious distinction and bring parity in promotional prospects in both the categories the recruitment rules were amended whereby 80% of the posts of ACWA shall be filled by the Chemist and 20% from amongst Bacteriologist by promotion.
4. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties we are of the considered view that chances of promotion are not the right guaranteed to a person. It is only a right to be considered on fair and equitable basis, which is a right guaranteed as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India to a government servant. Moreover, as a policy decision, amendment of recruitment regulations, when right of consideration for promotion to applicants has not been affected, the claim of the applicant cannot be countenanced in law as they were considered on promotion later on. Mere fixing the ratio when not established to be either mala fide or against the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be treated as irrational, arbitrary or against the Constitution of India. We have persistently pointed to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether before the amendment being effective either from 22.09.1997 or 1985, was there any vacancy available, the counsel has neither taken such a pleading in the TA nor established before us. In such view of the matter, the challenge of the applicants to the recruitment regulations is misconceived.
5. In the result for the foregoing reasons, TA being bereft of merit is dismissed.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) /San/