Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ratti Ram Meena S/O Sita Ram Meena And ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through The Chief ... on 3 January, 2007
ORDER Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Member (J)
1. MA No. 1097/2006 for joining together under Rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is allowed. Vide MA 2117/2006 applicants seek direction to Respondents to produce records of DPC. Respondents did produce minutes of DPC held on 6th January, 2006, which had been the basis of impugned order dated 01.05.2006.
2. 12 Applicants working as PGT Teachers in various Schools of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in this OA, seek following relief:
i) to disclose before this Hon'ble Tribunal the total number of posts under PGT/Lecturers under the respondents and total number of posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates & to produce the relevant records of DPC proceedings separately showing the action/efforts of the respondents to fill up posts of Vice-Principal in regard to Scheduled Tribes.
declare the impugned order dated 1.5.2006 as arbitrary, unconstitutional, invalid and illegal to the extent no Scheduled Tribes Candidate was promoted to the Post of Vice-Principal.
direct the respondents to give proper representation to STs as per prescribed quota of 7 =% for this category in the cadre of the Vice-Principal under respondent No. 3.
Award cost of the application in favour of the Applicants and against the respondents.
May also pass any other/further order (s) as may be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.
3. Admitted facts of the case are that the post of Vice-Principal, Group 'B' Gazetted carrying pay scale of Rs. 7,500- 12000/- is to be filled by selection from amongst PGTs having 5 years teaching experience or 10 years experience as TGT. DPC was convened on 06.01.2006 for filling up vacancies pertaining to years 2004-05 and 2005-06. An eligibility list was prepared for said purpose from two categories, namely, male & female. Secretariat Branch (Education) issued the communication in September 2005 and required all the Dy. Directors of Education to make available requisite documents with latest vigilance report and annual confidential reports in respect of Lecturers (Male & Female) as mentioned in the enclosed lists 'A' & 'B'. In the said annexures, applicants' name appeared in between 370 - 383. For 60 vacant posts of Vice-Principal (Male) in the year 2004-05 extended panel of names of 300 PGTs was determined as reflected vide eligibility list. For female category, the zone of consideration was also extended to five times the No. of vacancies i.e. 180 PGTs. The vacancies, which could not be filled due to non-availability of eligible candidates, were carried forward to next vacancy year 2005-06. There were 46 vacancies in the year 2005-06 including carried forward, and, therefore, extended zone of consideration for SC/ST candidates had been worked out to 230 candidates. Similarly, for female cadre vacancies, including the carried forward from earlier year, were 52.
4. The grievance of applicants is that vide order dated 01.05.2006, though 71 PGT/Lecturers (Male & Female) were promoted on regular basis as Vice-Principals, but did include even one Scheduled Tribe candidate. The Respondents grossly violated the relevant instructions for ensuring effective representation of Scheduled Tribes despite availability of sufficient number of candidates belonging to said category. On an earlier occasion, Raj Keeya Vidyalaya Anusuchit Janati Shikshak Sangh, had filed OA No. 690/1999 seeking enforcement and implementation of reservation policy in the ST category, which was partly allowed vide order dated 22.10.2001 with following observations:
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that in view of the fact that in the seniority list and promotion orders referred above candidates belonging to SC and ST categories have not been indicated separately in most of the cases and although the respondents have claimed to have implemented the Government policy regarding reservation by maintaining 15 and 7 =% reservation for SC and ST respectively. In our considered view position indicated both in seniority list and promotion orders referred to above is ambiguous as it is not possible to ascertain who ST candidates are and whether 7 =% reservation has been accorded to them. Thus, in the interest of justice, the OA is partly allowed directing the respondents to indicate in the impugned seniority list dated 10.2.99, Annexure A-2 and promotion orders dated 19.3.99 and 5.8.99 (Annexure A and B), categories of SC and ST candidates separately within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of these orders. No costs.
5. Despite aforesaid judgment, respondents failed to implement reservation policy in respect of ST candidates, contended Ms. Renu George. Furthermore, respondents failed to discharge its constitutional obligation by not protecting the interest of ST candidates in promoting them against 7 =% vacancies meant for said category. There is no proper representation from the said category, which is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14(c), 14A and 335 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur v. State Bank of India and Anr. 2005 (2) SLJ 246, to suggest that Government, as a model employer, is to abide by the law, i.e. Constitution of India and its action should be fair.
6. Respondents contested the claim laid stating that applicants' names could not find place even in the extended zone of consideration, which, as per Government rules and instructions for SC/ST categories, is 5 times for vacancies of a particular year. The department is committed to implement Government's instructions to the extent of 7.5% of the posts reserved for ST category, but except for one candidate, namely, Shri R.P. Meena whose name figured at Sl. No. 1373 of the eligible list of Male category for the vacancy year 2004-05, none was found eligible. Even the said R.P. Meena had been under a cloud as the charge memorandum dated 02.09.2003 issued under Rule 14 was pending against him and, therefore, recommendations in respect of him were placed in sealed cover.
7. Applicant filed rejoinder controverting the stand taken by respondents.
8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and material placed on record.
9. Great stress was laid by Ms. Renu George, learned Counsel on the communication dated 09.10.2006 wherein under question No. 7, respondents had stated that the posts of Vice-Principal reserved for ST candidates were exchanged "by SC candidate in the earlier DPC's". Reliance was also placed on DOP&T OM dated 06.11.2003 wherein it has been laid down that after introduction of post based reservation, it is not permitted to fill a post reserved for ST by a SC candidate by exchange of reservation or vice versa.
10. It is, no doubt, true that applicants may be eligible for consideration for promotional post of Vice-Principal having rendered 5 years of service as PGT or 10 years as TGT, but that is not enough. For consideration to promotional post, particularly of selection nature, one should be within the 'zone of consideration' whether normal or extended. It is the specific plea of respondents that applicant 'could not find place even in the extended zone of consideration', either for the vacancy years of 2004-05 or 2005-06. The said essential & fundamental condition has not been displaced or controverted by applicants by placing & producing any cogent material. Respondents have also pointed out that Annexures R-I & R-II, which were the eligibility lists of Male & Female for the vacancies 2004-05 and 2005-06, did not include any applicants or any ST except Shri R.P. Meena, whose name was at serial No. 1373. The said eligibility list, in fact, includes those who were within the extended zone of consideration. In these circumstances, we do not find any infraction of rule, law or any provisions of the Constitution of India, as alleged. Reservation in promotion does not mean that one has to be promoted irrespective of eligibility and falling beyond the zone of consideration.
11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no infirmity or illegality in the selection process or in the impugned promotion order dated 01.05.2006. OA is held to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.