Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
J Arulpraksam & Ors vs Dg, M/O Housing & Urban Affairs & Ors on 17 March, 2025
1 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 &
MA 773/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00276/2023
AND
MA/310/00773/2024
Dated this the 17th day of March, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
1. J. Arulprakasam,
S/o P. Jeyaraj,
Assistant Engineer (Civil)
Office of the Executive Engineer & SM (C),
Puducherry Project Division, Villupuram.
2. M. Dhanasekar,
S/o S. Maruthan,
Assistant Engineer (Civil)
Office of the Executive Engineer,
Madurai Central Division,
Central Public Works Dept., Madurai.
3. A. Tharageswari
D/o T. Atheeswaran,
Assistant Engineer (Civil)
Office of the Chief Engineer,
Central Public Works Dept., Madurai.
4. S. Saravanan @ Ayyakutti
S/o S.Sudalaimuthu,
Assistant Engineer (Civil)
Office of the Chief Engineer,
Central Public Works Dept., Madurai.
2 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 &
MA 773/2024
5. K. Raja,
S/o N. Kanagaraj,
Assistant Engineer (Civil)
Office of the Assistant Engineer,
Tirupur Central Sub Division,
CPWD, Tirupur.
6. M. Vijaya Shekara Reddy,
S/o M. Audisesha Reddy,
Assistant Engineer (Civil)
Office of the Executive Engineer-IV,
Central Public Works Dept., Chennai.
7. T. Siemon Jairaj,
S/o K. Thnikesan,
Assistant Engineer (Electrical)
Office of the Executive Engineer, (Elect.),
Chennai Electrical Division,
Chennai.
8. N. Manikandan,
S/o K. Narayanan,
Assistant Engineer (Electrical)
Office of the Assistant Engineer, CESDI,
Central Public Works Dept., Coimbatore.
9. S. Sivakumar,
S/o M. Shanmugasundaram,
Assistant Engineer (Electrical)
Office of the Chief Engineer,
Central Public Works Depat., Madurai.
10. K. Sundar,
S/o K. Kumaraswamy,
Assistant Engineer (Electrical).
Office of the Executive Engineer (Electl)
Chennai Electrical Division-1,
Chennai .. Applicants
By Advocate M/s. Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs
3 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 &
MA 773/2024
1. Union of India
rep by its The Director General,
Central Public Works Department,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhavan, Government of India,
New Delhi.
2. The Controller of Exam &
Chief Engineer (T &R) - II,
National CPWD Academy (Exam Cell)
Kamala Nehru Nagar, Hapur road,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Su. Srinivasan, SCGSG
4 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 &
MA 773/2024
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This OA has been filed by the applicants seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records relating to impugned File No. LDCE- 2022/AE/Exam/13, dated 16.02.2023, issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to conduct a separate LDCE examination for respective vacancy years after addressing the various issues raised in this Original Application and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fiT and proper"
2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:
The Applicants initially joined as Junior Engineers in the Civil and Electrical Wings of the respondent's department and were later promoted on an ad hoc basis to Assistant Engineers. According to the Recruitment Rules for Assistant Engineers, the method of recruitment is 80% by promotion from Junior Engineers with five years of service and 20% from through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for Junior Engineers with four years of service. However, due to administrative delays, the department failed to make promotions as per the set quotas and instead relied on ad hoc promotions. In 2014, an LDCE Notification was issued but later cancelled. A subsequent LDCE in 2015 for 12 vacancy years is still under legal challenge. For seven years, despite vacancies arising annually under the 20% quota, the department did not 5 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024 conduct an LDCE. In May 2022, a new Notification (LDCE-2022) was issued, covering eight years of vacancies from 2015-2022, but it lacked clarity and violated the department's own guidelines. The Notification also breached Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) instructions regarding the consideration of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) and Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for each vacancy year.
Aggrieved parties filed OA No.598 of 2022 challenging this Notification. Before a judgment was issued, the respondents cancelled the LDCE in February 2023 due to technical issues at exam centres but then issued a new Notification, largely unchanged from the previous one. The Tribunal, noting the cancellation, closed the OA and allowed the applicants to pursue their grievances in the appropriate legal manner. The applicants' main concern is the holding of a single examination to fill vacancies spanning eight years under the LDCE quota. This single exam reduces their opportunities for promotion, as eligibility for each year's vacancies was supposed to be considered separately. The applicants argue that this violates their fundamental right under Article 16, as it deprives them of the chance to compete for each year's vacancies individually. Citing a similar case decided by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal (Vimal Bharadwaj vs. BSNL, OA No.505/HP/2010), the Tribunal had previously ruled that a single exam for multiple years is unfair and denies individuals the right to compete each year. Despite raising these concerns in the earlier OA, the 6 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024 respondents issued a new Notification with similar issues, prompting the current application.
3. The Learned counsel for the applicants argued that, as per the Recruitment Rules, vacancies arising under the 20% quota must be filled on a yearly basis. The respondent's failure to conduct the LDCEs is illegal. The applicants have a right to be considered for the 20% quota in the same year the vacancy arises, and this right should not be determined by a single opportunity. Under normal circumstances, if the LDCE had been conducted annually as mandated by the rules, a candidate would have had an opportunity each year. The counsel further emphasized that due to administrative inefficiency, the applicants should not face adverse consequences. Administrative constraints that prevented the holding of eight examinations cannot be used as grounds to deny a constitutional right to be considered for the eight opportunities in the respective vacancy years under the 20% quota, provided they are otherwise eligible.
4. The Counsel also referred to the 1st respondent's admission in their counter affidavit in WP No. 7044 of 2015, when an earlier LDCE of 2015 was challenged that the duty to hold the LDCE annually was recognized. Therefore, the 1st respondent is bound by this statement made under oath in a Court of law and cannot retract it. The principle of estoppel should apply. To support this argument, the counsel cited a similar case from 7 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024 BSNL, where the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in Vimal Bharadwaj vs. BSNL (OA No. 505/HP/2010) held that conducting separate yearly examinations for each vacancy year is mandatory. The employer, without valid reasons, cannot consolidate examinations for multiple years for which no LDCE was held. The counsel concluded that this judgment is directly applicable to the present case.
5. The Counsel argued that, in the case of promotions based on the recommendations of the DPC, when such a DPC meets after a prolonged period during which vacancies have arisen across multiple years, year- wise panels must be prepared, considering the eligibility, Zone of Consideration, and relevant ACRs for each respective year. In other words, suitability should be assessed based on the materials pertinent to the specific vacancy year. Similarly, the suitability for promotion under the examination quota should be assessed according to the examination conducted for each respective year of vacancy, rather than relying on a single examination for all years. The respondents' action in this regard is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
6. The Counsel further pointed out that the examination scheme outlined in Para No. 5 does not adequately define the procedure to be 8 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024 followed when a candidate has multiple APARs for any specific assessment year. No norms have been established for assigning final grading marks based on multiple APARs for a particular year. By failing to address this contingency, the respondents are infringing upon the applicants' right to be considered for promotion in a fair and transparent manner.
7. The Counsel further submitted that Para 7 of the impugned Notification, which states that only the affected candidates will be given a chance to appear in a re-examination under circumstances beyond reasonable control, is arbitrary and irrational. All candidates appearing for the examination should be assessed based on the same benchmark and using the same question paper. Providing a separate examination in the event of a re-examination only for a select few candidates could lead to allegations of bias, nepotism, and arbitrariness, as well as complaints regarding the variation in difficulty levels and evaluation by different examiners, thereby vitiating the entire process. Accordingly, the counsel prayed for the relief sought in the present OA.
8. Learned counsel relied upon the following judgements:
(i) Judgement, dated 27.04.2023 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP.Nos.13611/2013 and batch of case 9 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024
(ii) Judgement , dated 06.02.2015 of the CAT, Guwahati Bench in OA No.43 of 2015, order dated 06.02.2015
(iii) Judgment, dated 09.10.2017 of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.6264/2011.
9. On the other hand, the Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the reply statement, emphasizing that the process of conducting the examination is long and tedious. It involves multiple time-consuming steps, including calculating category-wise vacancies, finalizing the exam, selecting the conducting agency after comparing the funds they demand, issuing the notification for the LDCE, and providing reasonable time for applicants to apply through online applications. These applications are then recommended and forwarded by the controlling officers to the Academy.
10. The Counsel further contended that scrutinizing and processing all the applications to ensure the accuracy of the data entered by applicants, verifying their eligibility, and confirming other details as per the Notification is a cumbersome process. Additionally, the generation of online admit cards for all candidates after approval of the applications adds to the complexity. In the case of the 2022 LDCE, admit cards were issued to 1,718 candidates. Further, the process involves selecting and arranging exam centres, preparing question papers, conducting exams at 10 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024 various centres across India, evaluating answer sheets, reviewing APARs of all candidates by committees in different zones under the Directorate, preparing year-wise results as per government guidelines and the exam notification, and declaring the results after combining marks from both the exam and the APARs. Therefore, the entire process takes a considerable amount of time. The counsel emphasized that the department makes every effort to conduct the exams as promptly as possible, given the available resources and manpower.
11. The Counsel further contended that even if the examination is conducted for multiple years simultaneously, the merit list is prepared based on the year-wise vacancies, and only those officers eligible for a particular year are selected for the corresponding vacancy year. This approach does not affect the applicants negatively, as the examination is conducted after considering the cumulative vacancies of previous years. All applicants are therefore eligible for a greater number of vacancies, which increases their chances of clearing the exam. The results are declared based on the candidates' merit, and seniority is assigned year- wise. If a candidate does not qualify for a particular vacancy year, their candidature is carried forward to subsequent years' vacancies. Candidates who secure higher ranks are assigned higher seniority positions within their eligible year, in accordance with this procedure, which has been in 11 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024 place in the department for many years. Based on this, the counsel prayed for dismissal of the OA.
12. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Judgment, dated 13.03.2017 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP.No.4421 of 2016 ( 2017 SCC ONLINE MAD 832)
(ii) Judgment, dated 15.02.1999 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.2526 of 1988.
13. The applicants have filed rejoinder, sur-rejoinder to which the respondents have filed reply statements, reiterating their respective contentions.
14. We have heard both the parties at length, perused the pleadings, and the materials placed on record. We have also carefully gone through the case laws cited by the respective parties.
15. This Tribunal, in the hearing dated 12.04.2023, passed the following interim order on 12.04.2023:
"8. Matter is posted today for considering interim prayer. Since the date of examination is very near and at this staying the examination pursuant to the notification dated 16.02.2023 would further delay the process of promotion initiated by the respondents.
9. In view of the above, as an interim measure, all the 12 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024 applicants are permitted to participate in the LDCE examination subject to the applicants' eligibility and scrutiny of their applications pursuant to the advertisement vide Notification No. LDCE2022/AE/Exam/13 dated 16.02.2023, annexure as Annexure-12 and there is no impediment for the applicants to participate in the aforesaid LDCE examination at present.
10. Liberty has been granted to the respondents to conduct the examination as stipulated in Part-I (OMR Based Examination) of the para 5.1 of the LDCE notification dated 16.02.2023. However, the result of the applicants, who participated in the LDCE examination as per Part-I of para 5.1 of the said notification shall not declared without the leave of the court.
11. However, the Par-II (Evaluation of Record of Service of such candidates who find the place in the eligible list of candidates 3 times of declared vacancy in order of merit in Part-I) of para 5.1 shall be determined by the Tribunal on the basis of their records to be available at the time of hearing."
18. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is important to note that although the LDCE examination was intended to serve as a channel for fast-track promotions, the department failed to conduct the LDCE regularly every year due to its own reasons. This inconsistency led to significant disruption and hindered the smooth career progression of the JEs cadre in CPWD. Records indicate that the Recruitment Rules (RR) were amended in 1997, which allowed the department to conduct the LDCE examination without UPSC's involvement. Despite this, it remains unclear why the department continued to correspond with UPSC regarding the conduct of the LDCE. 13 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024
19. The records also show that the LDCE system was introduced in CPWD in 1997. However, over the past 27 years, the CPWD was only able to conduct LDCE exams, either independently or through agencies, in the years 1999, 2002, and 2016. According to settled legal principles, 27 separate LDCE exams should have been conducted by the department, one for each year, but this was not done.
20. An identical issue was dealt with by the coordinate Bench (Chandigarh Bench) of this Tribunal In the case of Vimal Bhardwaj Vs BSNL, in OA No.505-HP of 2010. Vide its order, dated 15.04.2011, the Chandigarh Bench has held as follows:
"5. We find that the grievance raised on behalf of the applicants' merits acceptance. The eligible departmental candidates have a right to compete for the vacancies available for each relevant duration. If a candidate does not succeed at the examination held for 2006-07 vacancies, he would be competent to appear at the examination held the following year for the vacancies pertaining to the year 2007-08, and so on. In case a joint examination for all the vacancy-years is held to be allowable, those who do not succeed shall be denied as many as three opportunities to appear at that examination. This observation shall be relatable to those departmental candidates who were eligible for appearing at the examination for all the vacancy-years. It is, thus, apparent that the joint holding of examination for the vacancies of all these years may run to the detriment of the applicant and the like. The right to appear at a competitive examination of the indicated category (subject, of course, to eligibility), is a right vested in the candidate concerned. Any denial thereof has to be invalidated.
6. Though we can understand that the holding of as many as 14 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024 four examinations may be a fairly tardy affair for the departmental competent authority, but there is no way their practical difficulty can be alleviated. The accusation, for whatever reasons, of not having held the examination for each vacancy-year, lies squarely upon the competent authority itself. The refrain on the part of the competent authority in the relevant behalf cannot be allowed to adversely affect the applicant and the other similarly circumstanced departmental candidates.
7. The O.A. shall stand allowed, accordingly, with a direction that the competent authority shall hold independent examination for each vacancy-year. In other words, separate examinations shall be held for the vacancy years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. A period of two months shall intervene each examination. The period intervening the two examinations shall, obviously, be utilized for preparation of the result and other examination-related formalities. There should be no difficulty in the context in view of the conceded position that there is computerization all over."
21. The above decision was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Bench in CWP No.6264 of 2011, by order dated 09.10.2017 and the relevant portion is extracted below:
4. In our considered view, learned tribunal is right in holding that if a candidate is entitled to appeal thrice in Examination, then he must get time to prepare for the vacancy, which has fallen vacant in the succeeding year and also it is for this reason that test with respect to each year must independently be held for the vacancy having fallen vacant in that respective year. As such, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned tribunal. Needless to add that the directions, contained in the impugned order, shall not come in the way of the selection process, which already stands concluded by the Writ petitioner, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 24th August 2011.
5. Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any"15 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024
22. It is evident that the courts have consistently held that LDCE examinations must be conducted on a yearly basis, with applicants being given an opportunity each year. It is also important to note that the department provided an undertaking before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 7044 of 2015, as stated in Para 9, which reads as follows:
"9. It is submitted that the Department issued OM No.30/01/2013, dated 17.04.2014, making the calculation of vacancy in the grade of AE(C ) from the vacancy year 2007-2008 to 2013-2014 for regular promotion in the grade of AE(C) . Previously, LDCE has been held till the vacancy year 2001-2002. Vide the above OM, comments/objections were also called from the officers concerned regarding the calculation of the vacancies within 7 days. Last LDCE was held in 2002. LDCE is supposed to held every year. Due to prolonged litigation, LDCE could not be held for the last 12 years. This led the department in deep trouble as large number of vacancies in examination quota is lying vacant at AE level"
23. Be that as it may, similar situations have arisen where the department was unable to conduct LDCE exams on a year-wise basis. In such instances, the CAT, Principal Bench, in OA Nos. 2239 & 2526 of 1988, passed an order on 15.02.1999, which held as follows, with the relevant portion extracted below:
16 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 &MA 773/2024
"12. ........................ This is not the first time that LDCE is being held after a long gap. After 1979, this exam was held in 1982, in 1983, then in 1989 and 1992. We cannot also doubt that the department is incapable of holding the LDCE since it is already holding examinations for recruitment of Jes on All- India basis as also departmental examinations for AEs and EEs. ................................. In such a situation, the only justifiable course of action would be to ensure that proposed examination does not result in providing undue benefits to very junior JEs by means of tilting the position of seniority against rules. We mention this because there may be persons now appearing in the examination (1999) who may have joined the department in 1994 and if he qualifies and obtains a high ranking in the merits, he may be appointed for a vacancy for the post of AE which occurred in 1993 i.e., the vacancy when he did not even join the department even as JE. Such a situation would be only arbitrary and irrational. We are required to avoid such situation and the respondents are aware of such a position and have also come out with reasonable steps...... in the reply statement
13. In the light of the detailed discussions aforesaid and in the interest of justice and fair play, we do not think it appropriate to apply brakes on the wheels of the proposed selection process. For this reason, the OA deserve to be dismissed and we do so accordingly. However, to take of some of reasonable apprehensions of the applicants, it would be appropriate that while conducting the present selection and finalising the process thereof, respondents shall take precautions in terms ......."
24. The Hon'ble Madras High Court, in the case of All India Association of Inspectors and Assistant Superintendents of Posts, Tamil Nadu Circle, reported in 2017 SCC ONLINE MAD 832 (WP No. 4421 of 2016), considered the issue of whether the Department of Posts' decision 17 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024 to conduct a single examination for promotion to the post of P.S. Group 'B' without providing five separate opportunities to appear in different years was justified or not. In its judgment dated 03.03.2017, the Court held as follows:
"17. In case separate examinations are to be conducted year wise, necessarily, the process has to be repeated with sufficient interval. The Department has to give sufficient time in between two examinations. The Department of Posts wanted all these posts to be filled up early in larger public interest. The process of promotion would be delayed considerably in case the respondents are made to conduct separate examinations taking into account the period of vacancies. The respondents are therefore correct in their contention that in case examinations are conducted separately, it would take a minimum period of three years to complete the process and fill up the vacancies.
18. There is no rule or regulation which mandates that if vacancy is not filled up in a particular year and there is a proposal to club the vacancies, in such contingency, separate examination must be conducted year wise. The earlier practice of conducting examination in the very same year would not give a right to the petitioners to insist that Department should conduct similar exercise even if all the posts are clubbed together. In case the method indicated in the reply affidavit is followed, it would give an opportunity to all the aspiring candidates. This is more so on account of fixing separate cut off marks, taking into account the period of vacancies. We are therefore of the view that the petitioners have not made out a case for quashing the impugned notification and the order passed by the Tribunal.
19. We are informed that the examination was conducted as scheduled and the members of the first petitioner association and the second petitioner participated in the selection process. The respondents 1 to 4 are directed to complete the selection process strictly in accordance with the procedure indicated in the reply affidavit."
xxxxx xxxxx 18 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024
21. The order passed by the Tribunal declining to quash the notification is upheld. The direction to pay cost is set aside"
25. The applicants have a right to be considered for promotion. Needless to say that this is different from right to promotion. The consideration is to be according to the Rules. The Rules envisage consideration in each year that the applicants are eligible. The Rules for consideration for promotion require passing the LDCE. It is part of the process. If the LDCE are not held each year, there cannot be a fair evaluation of the applicant for that year. The right for consideration for promotion in each eligible year is trampled. This is in addition to the fact that holding one exam for several years takes away the right to be considered fairly as it reduces the chances of success for several reasons, least of it being linked to one single chance in place of several. Therefore, an LDCE has to be held for each vacancy year as the process of consideration cannot be completed without holding of the LDCE. For this reason, it has to be read into the Rules, if not mentioned in so many words. It is for this reason that we are not able to bring ourselves to agree with the decision, dated 15.02.1999 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA Nos. 2239 & 2526 of 1988. The decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. No.7044 of 2015 was delivered in a different set of circumstances. The respondents had given an undertaking before the 19 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024 Hon'ble High Court that going forward they will be holding the LDCE every year and since large vacancies existed, the holding of one exam was in public interest. The said undertaking has not been adhered to. In fact the said itself was thereafter cancelled (2015) and none has been held for several years till this exam.
26. The respondents have forwarded reasons that the holding of the LDCE in each year is cumbersome as it necessitates finalizing vendors, getting functional resources and preparing lists for each year. Public interest has also been canvassed. It appears that bogey of public interest is canvassed every time the issue comes for adjudication but actions of the respondents show that they are interested in anything but it, when it comes to filling the vacancies. Else vacancies would not have been allowed to accumulate over 8 to 10 years. The proposal of the respondents that one exam and consideration year wise for the vacancy year shows that the preparation of lists etc are not a hindrance to holding the exams. These are readily available with the respondents. Coming to the availability or lack of financial resources, suffice to say that the respondents cannot be allowed to overlook their obligation or right of the applicants for consideration for promotion for this reason. It has been so held by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.505-HP of 2010 and upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Bench in CWP 20 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024 No.6264 of 2011. Likewise, the Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.43 of 2015 vide its order, dated 06.02.2015 have reiterated the same following the orders of the Chandigarh Bench as confirmed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. These decisions are subsequent to the orders of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal cited supra. Recently, similar view has been expressed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in its decision dated 27.04.2023 in W.P. No.13611 of 2013 and batch. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
'......the department shall conduct a test to decide the eligibility in respect of the vacancies in each year. In order to avoide any confusion, it is made clear that in the test for the year 2002 the participation shall be based on the eligibility and availability and qualification of candidats as on the date of occurrences of the vacancies of that year. Such process shall be repeated in respect of each year, depending on the availability of vacancies. This process shall be completed within one month.'
27. In the present case, we find that the respondents have submitted correspondence exchanged with various recruiting agencies, attempting to demonstrate that they have taken diligent steps to fulfil their obligation to conduct LDCEs on time. However, on perusal of the reply letters from these agencies and the timeline of correspondence suggests otherwise. Despite the UPSC and SSC indicating their inability to conduct the exam, no genuine effort was made to engage another agency. Instead, the respondents repeatedly followed a futile routine of sending letters to the 21 OA No.310/00276 of 2023 & MA 773/2024 UPSC and SSC for several years. This clearly reflects a lack of bona fide intent on the part of the respondents to conduct the LDCEs annually.
28. In the above circumstance, we do not have any hesitation to set aside the impugned notification, dated 16.02.2023 for LDCE 2022 for the post of Assistant Engineer, Civil & Electrical and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. We therefore hold that the LDCE exams are required to be held for each year. We direct the respondents to conduct the LDCE for each vacancy year, beginning with the year following the last vacancy year for which the exam was held.
29. With the above directions the OA is allowed on the above terms. No order as to costs.
30. The request in MA No. 773 of 2024 filed by five applicants seeking to be impleaded as private respondents in the OA, cannot be entertained at this stage and is therefore dismissed.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
17 .03.2025
mas