Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Deepak Kumar Sinha vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. Through on 2 May, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2241/2012
M.A. No. 1786/2012
M.A. 2190/2012
with
O.A.No.2258/2012
M.A.No.1828/2012
M.A.No.2910/2012
O.A. No. 2130/2012
O.A. No. 2268/2012
M.A. No. 1837/2012
O.A. No. 2211/2012
O.A. No. 2266/2012
M.A. No.1836/2012
M.A. No. 2902/2012
O.A.No.2267/2012
M.A.No.2482/2012
Reserved on : 13.03.2013
Pronounced on : 02.05.2013
HONBLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
HONBLE MR. V. AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J)
O.A.2241/2012
1. Deepak Kumar Sinha,
S/o Late Shri F.B. Sinha,
R/o A2-B/133-B, Ekta Apartments,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063.
2. Narinder Singh Negi,
S/o Late Shri K.S. Negi,
R/o L-2/54-B, DDA Flats Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019.
3. Praduman Bhardwaj,
S/o Shri P. Prakash,
R/o A-244, Prashant Vihar,
Rohini Sector-14,
Delhi-110085.
4. Joy Joseph,
S/o Late Shri Joseph,
R/o 84-C/Pkt.-A,
Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095.
5. Kewal Kishore,
S/o Late Shri Nandlal,
R/o WZ-163A, Srinagar,
Shakur Basti,
Delhi-110034.
6. Pankaj Kumar,
S/o Late Shri Pitam Singh,
R/o L-42G, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-II,
New Delhi-110017.
7. Vijay Shankar Rai,
S/o Shri Kamla Prasad Rai,
R/o 24/5, 1st Floor,
Indira Vikas Colony,
Mukherjee Nagar,
Delhi-110009.
8. Narender Singh,
S/o Late Shri Jailal,
R/o G-9, Dhaka MPL Colony,
Delhi-110009.
9. Narinder Singh Madadh,
S/o Shri Rameshwar Singh,
R/o A-8/73, Sector-16,
Rohini, Delhi-110089. .. Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri M.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. through
1. The Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat, Players Building
I.P.Estate
New Delhi-2.
2. The Director,
Local Bodies,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
New Secretariat,
New Delhi.
3. The Commissioner,
NDMC, Civic Centre,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Arun Bhardwaj)
O.A.No.2258/2012:
Ashok Kumar
s/o Sh. Tika Ram
r/o A-104/A-2
Shalimar Garden Extn.-II
Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad.
Vinod Kumar
s/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal
r/o B-37, IInd Floor
Khirki Extn. Malviya Nagar
New Delhi.
Surender Singh Mor
s/o Sh. Badan Singh Mor
r/o E-458, MCD Colony
Azad Pur
Delhi.
Ramesh Chand Jain
s/o Late Sh. Bimal Prasad Jain
r/o C-317A, Chanakya Marg
Chajjupur,
Delhi 110 032.
Susheel Kumar
s/o Late Sh. Krishan Kumar
r/o 8/254, Model Town
Bahadurgarh
Distt. Jhajjar
Haryana. Applicants
(By Advocate: Sh. A.K. Soni with Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj)
1. Chief Secretary
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Delhi Secretariat, Players Building
I.P.Estate
New Delhi-2.
2. The Director,
Local Bodies,
Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate
New Delhi.
3. The Commissioner,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Civic Centre,
New Delhi.
4. The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Civic Centre,
New Delhi.
5. The Commissioner
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Civic Centre
New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Arun Bhardwaj)
O.A.2130/2012
Khem Singh,
S/o Shri Kalyan Singh,
R/o 7/79, Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi-110003. .. Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri M.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. through
1. The Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, Players Building
I.P.Estate
New Delhi-2.
2. The Director,
Local Bodies,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
New Secretariat,
New Delhi.
3. The Commissioner,
NDMC, Civic Centre,
New Delhi.
4. The Commissioner,
SDMC, Civic Centre,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Arun Bhardwaj)
OA No.2268/2012:
Sh. Santosh Kumar Pathak
s/o Late Sh. G.N.Pathak
r/o RS-684/2 Street No.2
Indira Park
Palam Colony
New Delhi 45.
Sh. Karamvir Mann
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
r/o H.No.499
V & PO Prahalad Pur Bangar
Delhi.
Sh. Raj Kumar
S/o Sh. Badle Ram
r/o 6/5 MCD Flat, Jheel Colony
Model Town-III, Delhi.
Sh. Rajender Kumar
s/o Sh. Umed Singh
r/o T-517/D-40 Baljeet Nagar
Hill Marg
New Delhi 8.
Sh. Sudesh Kumar
s/o Sh. Kali Ram
r/o Village Firoz Pur Bangar
PO Kundal, Distt. Sonepat
Haryana.
Sh. Parveen Kumar
s/o Sh. Hardwari Lal
r/o 12/496, Kalyan Puri
Delhi 92.
Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Sharma
s/o Sh. C.L.Sharma
r/o A-209, Majlis Park
Adarsh Nagar
Delhi 33.
Sh. Kanwar Pal
s/o Sh. Satpal Singh
r/o A1/29, Himgiri Enclave
Sant Nagar
Burari
Delhi.
Sh. Bhagat Dayal
s/o Sh. Ram Kishan
r/o F-39, UG Floor
Khanpur Ext.
New Delhi 62.
Sh. Harish Kumar
s/o Sh. Kali Charan
r/o B-9/6621 Street No.4
Dev Nagar
Karol Bagh
New Delhi 5.
Sh. Faizan Raza
s/o Sh. Hussain Raza
r/o C-10/175, Yamuna Vihar
Delhi 53.
Sh. C.S.Tiwari
s/o Sh. Bhagwan Shai Tiwari
r/o C-119, Jawahar Park
Devali Road
Khanpur.
Pankaj Sharma
s/o Sh. R.K.Sharma
r/o QU-312A North Pitam Pura
Chittar Koot Apartment
Delhi 88.
Sh. Vijender Kumar
s/o Sh. Khushi Ram
r/o 32/15, Wazirabad Village
Delhi 84.
Sh. G.P.Jaiswal
s/o Sh. Gayz Chaudhary
r/o C-142, New Ashok Nagar
Delhi 96.
Sh. Narender Singh
s/o Sh. Manni Lal
r/o Village-Junaid Pur,
P.O.-Dhonri
Greater Noida
Gautam Budh Nagar
U.P. Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri M.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. through
1. The Chief Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
I.P.Estate
New Delhi.
2. The Director,
Local Bodies,
Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate
New Delhi.
3. The Commissioner,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Civic Centre,
New Delhi.
4. The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Civic Centre,
New Delhi.
5. The Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Civic Centre
New Delhi. ... Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Arun Bhardwaj with Shri Rahul Singh for
Sh. B.Shekhar)
O.A.No.2211/2012:
Sardar Singh
s/o Late Shri Khazan Singh
JE (Civil) MCD
Resident of 2/6, M.C.D.Staff Quarters
Andrews Ganj
New Delhi 110 049.
Sudhir Kumar
s/o Shri Suresh Chand
JE (Mech.) MCD
r/o B-368, Avantika Rohini
Sector-1
Delhi 110 085.
Rakesh Kumar
s/o Shri M.S.Sharma
JE (Civil)
R/o A-1/7, Gali No.11A
Khajuri Khas
Delhi 110 094. Applicants
(By Advocate: Sh. Susheel Sharma with Sh. M.K.Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat, Players Building
I.P.Estate
New Delhi-2.
2. Commissioner (East),
East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC)
Delhi Shahdra North Delhi
Patparganj Industrial Area
Delhi.
3. Commissioner (North)
North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC)
9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M.Civic Centre
Pt. J.L.N.Marg (Minto Road)
New Delhi 110 002.
4. Additional Commissioner (Engineering)
North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC)
9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M.Civic Centre
Pt. J.L.N.Marg (Minto Road)
New Delhi 110 002. .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Arun Bhardwaj with Sh. Rahul Singh for
Sh. B. Shekhar)
O.A.No.2266/2012:
Sh. Behari
s/o Sh. Radha Charan
r/o F-39, UG Floor
Khanpur Ext.
New Delhi 62.
Sh. Udaivir Singh
s/o Sh. Chhiddu Singh
r/o B-56, Amar Colony
East Gokalpur
Delhi 94. Applicants
(By Advocate: Sh. M.K.Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Chief Secretary
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi),
Delhi Secretariat, Players Building
I.P.Estate
New Delhi-2.
2. The Director,
Local Bodies,
Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate
New Delhi.
3. The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Civic Centre,
New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Arun Bhardwaj)
O.A.No.2267/2012:
Shri Jaypal Sharma
s/o Sh. Bhile Ram
r/o D-19, Flat No.4
Khanpur Ext.
New Delhi 62. Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Nilansh Gaur)
Versus
1. The Chief Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat, Players Building
I.P.Estate
New Delhi-2.
2. The Director,
Local Bodies,
Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate
New Delhi.
3. The Commissioner,
New Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Civic Centre,
New Delhi.
4. The Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Civic Centre,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Arun Bhardwaj)
ORDER (Common)
By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) The law and facts involved in all the aforesaid OAs is/are the same and hence being disposed of by this common order. However, to appreciate the controversy involved, a brief reference to the facts in OA No.2241/2012 and OA No.2267/2012 as being illustrative representing two groups of persons, would suffice.
2. All the applicants in the above OAs are working as Junior Engineers (Civil/Electrical/Mechanical), as the case may be, and are aggrieved by the orders dated 29.06.2012 of the 3rd Respondent in reverting them to their respective substantive posts which they were holding prior to their appointment to the post of Junior Engineer.
O.A.No.2241/2012:
3. It is submitted that in 3rd Respondent MCD, which is now been trifurcated, there were various cadres, including engineering cadres consisting of various posts. As per the original Recruitment Rules of 1984, there was no provision for appointment of Junior Engineer (Civil/Electrical/Mechanical) by promotion. As there was shortage of JE (Civil/ Electrical), for speedy recruitment of JEs, the Corporation vide Resolution No.131 dated 12.07.2004 amended the Recruitment Regulations for filling up 5% of the posts of JE, from the qualified persons working on various subordinate posts of the general wing of the Corporation, through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).
4. The said amendment was sent to the Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of NCTD for approval/Notification. In view of the urgency to fill up the JE posts and due to the administrative exigencies and since the Notification was likely to take some time, the Corporation decided to fill up the 5% vacancies in terms of the amended Regulations pending publication of the Notification.
5. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision, the respondents issued Circular dated 14.10.2004 (Annexure A2) and called for applications/biodata from the eligible and willing candidates, who fulfilled the required qualifications. Since all the applicants are eligible and fulfilling the qualifications prescribed as per the said amended Regulations, applied for appointment to the posts of JE (Civil/ Electrical). As the total posts available under the aforesaid 5% quota were 43, in order to ensure that all the vacancies are filled up, the duly constituted Screening Committee examined the eligibility of all the candidates who had submitted the applications and finally found that only 14 candidates were eligible against 43 vacancies. In the meanwhile, the amended regulations were notified vide Notification dated 27.03.2006 (Annexure A3). This was in supersession of the erstwhile 1984 Rules (Annexure P/1). Schedule-I, Column 11 prescribed the following provisions:
(A) 5% by departmental recruitment on the basis of a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination to be held by the Engineering Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, failing which by direct recruitment. The competitive examination shall be open to the employees of the General Wing of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, possessing Degree or Diploma in Civil Engineering from a recognized University/Institution with five years regard service in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (out of which 2 years rendered after acquiring the Diploma in the case of Diploma holders). In case these 5% vacancies could not be filled up in a particular year due to any reason, the said vacancies shall be carried over to two subsequent years. As per Col.12, the age and educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitments were not made applicable in case of promotion. Besides, it also contained the powers to relax as per Rule 5 as hereunder:
Where the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing and in consultation with the Government, relax any of the provisions of these regulations with respect to any class or category of persons or posts. The competent authority, in view of less number of eligible candidates, found that no purpose would be served in holding competitive examination, placed proposal before the Commissioner, MCD for relaxation of the amended Regulations. Thereafter, the Commissioner, in turn, proposed for the same which was recommended by the Appointments, Promotions, Disciplinary and Allied Matters Committee. Basing on the same, the House of the Corporation considered the said proposal being the competent authority for relaxing the provision for holding a competitive examination under the amended Recruitment Regulations for the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil), Junior Engineer (Electrical) and Junior Engineer (Mechanical), General Wing of MCD of Delhi 2006, passed Resolution No.121 dated 10.07.2006 resolving to relax the provision for holding a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination prescribed under Column 11 of the Schedule Annexed to the Regulations with respect to the 12 candidates of the posts of JE (Civil) and 2 candidates for the post of JE (Electrical) and referred the matter to the Government for consultation (Annexure A4).
6. Accordingly, the respondents issued letters of offer of appointment for the posts of Junior Engineers to the applicants. On furnishing the acceptance by the applicants, the respondents issued Office Orders, (one such order dated 22.11.2006 is filed at Annexure A6), appointing the applicants as Junior Engineers (Civil/Electrical, as the case may be), against the 5% quota of departmental candidates, on ad hoc basis initially for a period of six months. However, the respondents treated the applicants as regular JEs only for all purposes in all the subsequent proceedings such as transfer orders, etc. (Annexure A7), and continued the applicants as JEs even after expiry of the initial six months. The aforesaid Circular dated 14.10.2004 inviting applications for filling up of JE vacancies, and the consequential appointment of applicants as JEs were questioned by one Sri Santhosh Kumar Pathak, who was not eligible as per the said Circular in T.A.No.1309/2009 and this Tribunal has dismissed the same, by its order dated 04.02.2010 (Annexure RJ-1).
7. It is further submitted that since the applicants, who were working in different substantive posts, were appointed as JEs, their juniors in those categories were promoted to the higher posts, as per their eligibility. Since the respondents have not shown the names of the applicants in the seniority list of JE (Civil/Electrical, as the case may be), the applicants requested them for the same. While things stood thus, the MCD was trifurcated into South Delhi Municipal Corporation, North Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal Corporations. The applicants have been transferred to different Municipal Corporations. When the respondents without showing the names of the applicants in the seniority list of JEs, trying to revert them to their original substantive posts, the applicants preferred OA NO.2031/2012 which was disposed of by this Tribunal by Order dated 05.06.2012 directing the respondents to take the decision on the claim of the applicants for treating them as regular JE (C/E), from the date of their initial appointment and to communicate the said decision to the applicants by fixing time limit and not to revert the applicants for a period of two weeks thereafter.
8. The learned counsel for the applicants, inter alia, raised the following grounds in support of the OA averments:
that the impugned orders are without application of mind and against to the Resolution No.442 and 877 of the Corporation wherein it was resolved that all Municipal Officers and employees working on ad hoc basis beyond one year of initial tenure, should be declared as holding the status of regular officers/employees on the posts held by them from the date of their initial appointments subject to availability of regular vacancy on the respective posts. Since admittedly, the applicants were appointed/promoted against the existing vacancies of JEs, after relaxation of the rules by the House of the Corporation, and have been working for the last about seven years, it is not open for the respondents to revert them to their respective substantive post.
That the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is the competent authority to relax the Regulations as per Regulation No.5. Hence, once the MCD, in exercise of the said power, relaxed the Rules/Regulations, subsequent rejection for the same by the Government does not arise at all, since consultation does not mean concurrence/consent.
As per Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 2006, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is the competent authority to relax the Rules/Regulations and hence, the Commissioner has no power or authority to pass the impugned reversion orders. MCD means the House of the Corporation but not the Commissioner.
That after the promotion of the applicants from their respective substantive vacancies to the post of JEs, number of their juniors were promoted to the posts which were earlier occupied by the applicants, as per rules, and if the applicants are reverted back, those employees will also have to be reverted to lower posts, resulting cascading reversions.
That the Commissioner, the Appointments, Promotions, Disciplinary and Allied Matters Committee and the House of the Corporation have given valid and detailed reasons for relaxing the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, before appointing the applicants, but the impugned order does not disclose any reasons whatsoever for not accepting the same, and hence, being non-speaking order, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
9. The respondents have filed their reply praying for dismissal of the OA. The respondents though not denied the facts as narrated by the applicants, but submit that since the appointment of the applicants itself is in violation of the notified Regulations, there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned orders.
10. It is further submitted that during the process of recruitment of the applicants, the department had made a reference to the Department of Urban Development, GNCTD vide letters dated 20.11.2006 and 22.07.2009 seeking relaxation in the Recruitment Regulations for waiving of the condition of holding the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. Reminders were also sent on 16.06.2011 and 04.07.2011. Finally, the Lt. Governor, Delhi vide orders dated 11.05.2012 directed to cancel the appointments/promotions and to revert the applicants to their substantive posts. It is further submitted that as against the 5% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination quota of 35 vacancies of JEs (Civil/Electrical/ Mechanical), 14 candidates, i.e., the applicants were appointed in 2006 and 21 candidates in 2010 were appointed. The ad hoc appointment of the applicants was extended upto 30.09.2010 only.
11. The facts in OA 2258/2012 are similar to the facts in OA No.2241/2012.
OA No.2267/2012:
12. Briefly stated, while the applicant was working as Beldar, the respondents issued Circular No.HC-II/ENGG. HQ/2007/139 dated 20.04.2007 inviting applications for filling up 30 vacancies of Junior Engineers (Civil) under 5% quota of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). As the applicant was fully qualified and eligible, he has also applied. The Screening Committee after applying all the parameters, found the applicant and certain others only eligible as against 30 vacancies, as per the Recruitment Rules/Regulations. Therefore, in view of less number of eligible candidates the competent authority having come to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served in holding the LDCE proposed for relaxation of the Rules to the effect that selecting candidates after conducting LDCE, which was recommended by the Appointments/Promotions/ Disciplinary/Allied Matters Committee, and approved by the House of Corporation vide its Resolution No.55 dated 15.12.2008. Accordingly, the respondents appointed the applicant as Junior Engineer (Civil), on ad hoc basis, for a period of six months, pending consultation with the Government, vide Office Order dated 29.01.2010. The applicant has been continuing as such till date.
13. The respondents vide impugned order dated 29.06.2012 while stating that the Honble LG of Delhi has directed for cancellation of the ad hoc appointment of the applicant, passed orders without giving any valid reasons, reverting the applicant to his substantive post of Beldar.
14. The applicants in OAs No.2130/2012, 2268/2012, 2211/2012 and 2266/2012 are similarly situated like the applicant in OA No.2267/2012.
15. By virtue of the stay orders granted by this Tribunal, all the applicants in all the OAs have been continuing as JEs (Civil/Electrical/Mechanical) till date.
16. Heard all the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the respondents and have been through the pleadings on record.
17. The relevant portion of the impugned reversion order reads as follows:
AND WHEREAS the administrative authorities re-examined the case and observed as under:-
The number of vacancies to be earmarked against the 5% departmental quota, subsequent to notification of RRs on 27th March, 2006, should be reckoned based on the vacancy roster in proportion to the posts filled up under 95% Direct Recruitment Quota.
A Limited Departmental Competitive Examination will be held allowing appearance of eligible candidate in the said examination. Appointments will be made against the available vacancies from successful candidates on regular basis as per provision in the notified RRs.
AND WHEREAS on the basis of re-examination of the matter by the concerned Authority and submitted to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi who forwarded the Honble L.G. of Delhi who has directed that appointments/promotions made as stated above, may be cancelled.
18. It is to be noted that the respondents have not denied the contention of the applicants that there were a total number of 43 posts of JEs were available under the 5% LDCE quota as on the date of their appointment. It was also not denied that there were no other eligible candidates for appointment as JEs even if the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination was conducted. Further, only 14 vacancies were filled up by appointing the applicants in the year 2006 and 21 vacancies were filled up in the year 2010, as stated by the respondents themselves in para no.2 of the counter filed by them. It is not forthcoming whether the reckoning of JE vacancies as 43 vide Annexure A-10 (OA No.2241/2012) dated 18.05.2006 was wrong and whether any exercise has been done to reckon the number of vacancies to ear mark the 5% departmental quota subsequent to notification of Recruitment Rules on 27.03.2006 based on the vacancy roster as stated in the impugned order, and whether any of the applicants could not be adjusted against the said earmarked vacancies. It is also not forthcoming, whether the respondents conducted any LDCE till date and whether all the available vacancies under the 5% LDCE quota are filled up, and that because of the applicants appointment, any other employees rights have been infringed, as on the date of applicants appointment.
19. Equally, it is not denied by the applicants that they were appointed as JEs, after Recruitment Regulations were amended, and in violation of the statutory requirement of passing the LDCE. The statutory Regulations provide for LDCE, to assess the suitability of an employee for the promotion post of Junior Engineer, though, he satisfies the essential eligibility criteria, under the same Regulations. When, admittedly, their initial appointment as JEs itself was in violation of the statutory Regulations, they cannot plead any equities or violation of any principles or regulations by the respondents in their subsequent actions and consequential to the ad hoc appointment of the applicants in exercising their powers in relaxing any of the said statutory regulations.
20. Further, it is trite that once an action is done in violation of a statutory Regulation, no Court can compel the authority to regularize the said violation by relaxing the requirement under the said Regulation, since it amounts to compelling the authorities to violate law. Therefore, the decision taken by the respondents not to waive the requirement of passing of LDCE for appointment as JEs as stipulated in Column 11 of the Schedule annexed to the Recruitment Regulations for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), Junior Engineer (Electrical) and Junior Engineer (Mechanical), General Wing of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2006, cannot be interfered with.
21. In view of the said settled legal position, there is no necessity to examine, in detail, the various grounds raised by the applicants and the averments made by the respondents with regard thereto, as all those grounds pertaining to the subsequent events and actions of the respondents which were admittedly done, after applicants appointments, without following the statutory Regulations.
22. In these peculiar circumstances of the case, the OAs are disposed of with the following directions:
i) The respondents shall reckon the number of vacancies to be earmarked against the 5% departmental quota, subsequent to Notification of RRs on 27th March, 2006, based on the vacancy roster in proportion to the posts filled up under 95% Direct Recruitment Quota, as observed by the respondents themselves.
ii) The respondents shall conduct the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the post of Junior Engineers (Civil/Electrical/Mechanical) under the 5% LDCE quota, as per the Recruitment Regulations, by allowing all the eligible candidates, including the applicants.
iii) The respondents shall, then, make appointments against the available vacancies from the successful candidates, and who fulfill the essential eligibility criteria, on regular basis as per the notified Recruitment Regulations.
iv) The respondents shall complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and shall not give effect to the impugned orders of reversion till then, as directed above.
23. No separate orders are necessary in MAs, since the main OAs are disposed of, as above.
24. Registry is directed to place a certified copy of this common order in all the other OA Nos.2130/2012, 2268/2012, 2211/2012, 2266/2012, 2258/2012 and 2267/2012.
(V. Ajay Kumar) (Sudhir Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) /nsnrvak/