Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shobhna Sharma vs Cpwd on 31 August, 2017
1 OA 347/14
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A.NO.347 OF 2014
New Delhi, this the 31st day of August, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI SHEKHAR AGARWAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
AND
HON'BLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
.........
1. Ms.Shobhna Sharma,
Aged about 42 years,
W/o Sh.Satish Sharma,
R/o 4/174, F-1, Vaishali,
Ghaziabad, UP-201010
2. Sh.Ravi Dutt Sharad,
Aged about 44 years,
s/o Sh.M.L.Sharad,
R/o House No.860,
Sector-7, Block-C,
Faridabad, Haryana-121006
3. Sh.Bhuwan Chandra Joshi,
Aged about 41 years,
s/o Sh.L.D.Joshi,
R/o N-272, Sector-9,
R.K.Puram,New Delhi 110022
4. Sh.Rajan Sharma,
Aged about 46 years,
S/o Sh.R.S.Sharma,
R/o C-5A/166, Janak Puri,
New Delhi 110058
5. Sh.Charanjit Singh,
Aged about 43 years,
S/o Sh.Hari Singh,
R/o 19-H, Sikka Colony,
Sonepat, Haryana 131001
6. Sh.Rajkumar Singh,
Aged about 46 years,
S/o Sh.Mahavir Singh,
R/o Plot No.1/41, Vaishali,
Page 1 of 17
2 OA 347/14
Ghaziabad, UP 201012
7. Sh.Sshit Sanyal,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o late Anirudh Sanyal,
R/o H-228,Alpha-II,
Greater Noida, U.P.
8. Sh.Parvinder Kumar,
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Sh.Prem Lal Jawa,
R/o Plot No.584, Sector-15,
Sonepat, Haryana
9. Sh.Satish Kumar Minocha,
Aged about 46 years,
S/o Sh.Jagdish Chander,
R/o 1899, Sector-7,
U.E., Karnal, Haryana 132001
10. Sh.Pramod Kumar,
Aged about 49 years,
S/o Sh.Sri kishan Vats,
R/o Chand Colony,
Samalkha (Panipat),
Haryana 132101
11. Sh.Darshan Singh,
Aged about 44 years,
S/o Sh.Balvir Singh,
R/o Type II, G-17, FF Colony,
Old Jail Road, Amritsar, Punjab.
12. Ms.Geeta Bhutani,
Aged about 51 years,
w/o Sh.M.K.Bhutani,
R/o Block No.C-5-B,
Flat No.6-B,
Janakpuri,
Delhi 110058
13. Sh.H.M.Naushad,
aged about 43 years,
s/o Sh.Ali Mohd.,
R/128/4, Sector-I,
M.B.Road,
Delhi 110017
Page 2 of 17
3 OA 347/14
14. Sh.Prashant Pandit,
Aged about 44 years,
S/o Sh.M.S.Sharma,
R/o L-72, Jalvayu Vihar,
Sector-29, Faridabad 121008
15. Sh.Ramesh Bhatt,
Aged about 43 years,
s/o late Ravi Dutt Bhatt,
R/o B-2968,Netaji Nagar,
New Delhi 110023 ..... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr.Yogesh Sharma)
Vs.
Union of India through
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Director General,
Central Public Works Department,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Special Director General (NR),
Central Public Works Department,
Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi 110066
4. Executive Engineer Coordination (Civil) NR,
Central Public Works Department,
East Block-I, Level-VI,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi 110066
5. Mrs. Neelam, UDC,
O/o Director (PM),
Director General, CPWD,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi,
R/o Qtr.No.1625, Laxmi Bai Nagar,
New Delhi.
6. Mrs.Pushpa Rani,
Superintending Engineer (C&M),
Page 3 of 17
4 OA 347/14
O/o Chief Engineer (CSQ), CPWD,
335-A, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi,
R/o 111, Tilak Khand, Giri Nagar,
Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019 ...... Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr.Piyush Gaur for Respondents 1 to 4; and
Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj for Respondents 5 and 6)
............
ORDER
Per RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER(J):
The applicants have filed the present O.A. seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 24.01.2014 (Annexure A-1) and also declare the action of the respondents in not dividing the vacancies of the cadre of Office Supdt. in accordance with the quota prescribed as illegal and arbitrary.
(ii) direct the respondents to recalculate the vacancies for the year 2012-2013 for the quota meant for LDCE and consider the case of the applicants for promotion based upon the examination conducted on 08.12.2012 and 09.12.2012 in accordance with the merit position and grant consequential benefits."
2. We have carefully perused the records, and have heard Mr.Yogesh Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, and Mr.Piyush Gaur, the learned counsel appearing for official respondents 1 to 4, and Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, the learned counsel appearing for private respondents 5 and 6.
3. Brief facts of the case, which are not in dispute, are that as per the recommendations of the 6th CPC, a cadre review was carried out by the official respondents, as a result of which the post of Office Superintendent Grade II in the Pay Scale of Rs.5500-9000/- as well as the post of Head Page 4 of 17 5 OA 347/14 Clerk in the Pay Scale of Rs.5000-8000/- merged, and new post of Office Superintendent was created in the Pay Band II with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. Vide O.M. dated 10.1.2012 issued by the Director General, CPWD, it was decided that till the Recruitment Rules for the newly created post of Office Superintendent were framed, further recruitment would be carried out according to the existing Recruitment Rules (RRs) for the post of Head Clerk. The posts were to be filled up by two modes, first by way of seniority, and second by way of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) after the merging of the post of Head Clerk in the newly created post of Office Superintendent. Notification dated 23.7.2012 was issued by the official respondents for conducting LDCE for the newly created post of Office Superintendent. The exact number of vacancies falling under the LDCE quota was not mentioned in the said notification dated 23.7.2012. On 8.8.2012, the official respondents issued Office Memorandum indicating the cadre strength of Office Superintendents of Northern Region as 360. On 8th and 9th December 2012, the official respondents conducted the LDCE where the applicants and others participated. 47 candidates (including the 15 applicants herein) qualified the LDCE, but the official respondents promoted only 22 candidates. 25 candidates including the 15 applicants herein were not promoted. While the matter stood thus, the official respondents issued O.M. dated 14.8.2013 for holding LDCE for promotion from the grade of Upper Division Clerk to the grade of Office Superintendent under 50% quota for the year 2013-14. The applicants, by legal notices dated Page 5 of 17 6 OA 347/14 20.11.2013, brought to the notice of the official respondents that there existed vacancies under the LDCE quota for their promotion to the grade of Office Superintendent on the basis of the results of the LDCE held on 8th and 9th December 2012 and, therefore, their non-promotion to the grade of Office Superintendent and the issuance O.M. dated 14.8.2013(ibid) were bad and illegal. Accordingly, the applicants, by the legal notices, called upon the official respondents to withdraw the O.M. dated 14.8.2013 (ibid) and to promote them to the grade of Office Superintendent against the vacancies under LDCE Quota for the year 2012-13 on the basis of results of the LDCE held on 8th and 9th December 2013. The claim of the applicants was turned down by the official respondents, vide reply/letter dated 24.01.2014 (Annexure A-1). The LDCE, pursuant to the O.M. dated 14.8.2013 (ibid), was scheduled to be held on 8.3.2014. The Tribunal, by its interim order dated 3.3.2014 passed in the present O.A., directed that the process of the said LDCE might go on, but the results thereof shall not be published until further orders of the Tribunal. As private respondent nos. 5 and 6 appeared in the LDCE held on 8.3.2014, the Tribunal allowed their application for intervention and they were impleaded as party-respondents in the present O.A.
4. In support of their case, the applicants have given the details of the sanctioned strength of the post of Office Superintendent and the category-wise vacancy positions during 2012-13 in the following tabular form:
Page 6 of 17 7 OA 347/14
UR SC ST Total Sanctioned Strength 280 54 26 360 In position as on 31.3.2012 209 35 10 254 Vacancies available as on 1.1.2013 71 19 16 106 Vacancies occurred during 2012-13 13 00 00 13 Total vacancies available during 2012-13 84 19 16 119 It is the claim of the applicants that by applying 50% quota, 42 UR, 9 SC and 8 ST: total 59 vacancies were available for each of the quotas, i.e, seniority quota and LDCE quota, whereas the official respondents filled 30 (17 UR, 9 SC and 4 ST) out of 59 vacancies under LDCE quota. Therefore, 29 (25 UR and 4 ST) vacancies under LDCE quota remained unfilled during the year 2012-13. It is the contention of the applicants that as per the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training's O.M. No.14017/2/1997-
Estt.(RR), dated 19.1.2007, which is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar, C.W.P. No.5893/1997, decided on 18.12.1998, the Department is required to prepare the vacancy-based roster and not post-based roster, by taking into consideration the vacancies that fall due at a given point of time. Therefore, the official respondents have acted contrary to the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and instructions issued by the Government of India, by preparing post-based roster instead of vacancy-based roster. Page 7 of 17 8 OA 347/14
5. On the other hand, it is the case of the official respondents that during the year 2012-13, there were 29 vacancies available under LDCE/examination quota, the breakup of which was 12-UR, 06-SC and 11- ST, as against which 12 UR, 6 SC, and 4 ST candidates, who qualified in the LDCE conducted on 8th and 9th December 2012, were promoted, thus and thereby leaving 7 ST vacancies because of non-availability of LDCE qualified ST candidates. Therefore, the claim of the applicants is untenable. In their additional affidavit filed on 4.5.2017, the official respondents have given the following details of roster in Seniority Quota and Examination Quota after the cadre review during 2012-13:
"2012-13 Seniority Quota Exam Quota UR SC ST Total UR SC ST Total Sanctioned Strength 140 27 13 180 140 27 13 180 In position as on 31/03/2012 82 17 08 107 127 18 02 147 Vacancy occurred during 09 00 00 09 04 00 00 04 2012-13 Actual vacancies filled up 32 08 03 43 05 03 00 08 during 2012-13 In position as on 31/03/2013 105 25 11 141 128 21 02 151 Vacancy position as on 35 02 02 39 12 06 11 29 31/03/2013
6. From the statement made by the official respondents, it is clear that there were 119 vacancies in the post of Office Superintendent during the year 2012-13, and that the official respondents filled only 30 vacancies under LDCE/examination quota.
7. Thus, the sole question that arises for our consideration is as to whether the official respondents were justified in not allocating and filling Page 8 of 17 9 OA 347/14 50% of the total vacancies (119) in the grade of Office Superintendent available during the year 2012-13 under the LDCE/examination quota, and in denying consideration of the cases of the applicants for promotion under the LDCE/examination quota on the basis of the results of the LDCE held on 8th and 9th December 2012.
8. In State of Punjab and others Vs. Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar and another, (1999) 2 SCC 330, the respondent was an Assistant Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology in Government Medical College, Patiala. The question arose as to how the vacancy in the post of Professor of Ophthalmology was to be filled in on the retirement of one Dr.Shiv Inder Singh Rudra, Professor of Ophthalmology, with effect from 31.10.1996. The relevant rule governing such posts is Rule 9(1)(d) of the Punjab Medical College Education Service (Class I) Rules, 1978. The said Rule reads as under:
"9(1) Method of appointment.-
(d) In the case of Professors:
(i) 75 per cent posts by promotion from amongst the Additional Professors, or where Additional Professors are not available, from amongst the Associate Professors, or where Associate Professors are not available, from amongst the Assistant Professors, or by transfer of officials already in the service of the Government of India, or the State Government;
(ii) 25 per cent posts by direct recruitment."
According to the appellant-State, as there were five posts in the cadre of Professors of Ophthalmology in the said College, on the basis of the aforesaid quota rule governing the recruitment in question, every three vacancies of Professors in the cadre had to be filled in by departmental Page 9 of 17 10 OA 347/14 promotees while the fourth vacancy would be filled in by direct recruitment and thereafter succeeding vacancies to be filled in by promotees and direct recruits in the successive cycles of 3:1. The case of the appellant-State was that in the cadre of Professors of Ophthalmology in the said College, right from the beginning when the erstwhile executive instructions on the same lines operated till the date of the falling of the vacancy in question, there were in all, 15 Professors including the said Dr.Rudra, who retired as aforesaid, and, therefore, on his retirement, the 16th vacancy arose. As per the appellant-State, on the operation of the quota rule and the roster cycles of 3:1, the 16th vacancy would be available to a direct recruit as under: 1st vacancy to promote, 2nd vacancy to promote, 3rd vacancy to promote, 4th to direct recruit, 5th, 6th and 7th to promotees, 8th to direct recruit, 9th, 10th and 11th to promotees, 12th to direct recruit, 13th, 14th, 15th to promotees and 16th to direct recruit. Consequently, the said vacancy was advertised for being filled up by direct recruitment. That brought the respondent to the High Court by way of writ petition. His contention in the writ petition was that in the light of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in R.K.Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745, as there were total five posts in the cadre of Professors of Ophthalmology, 75% thereof, namely, 3.75 posts had to be reserved for promotees and 1.25% of the remaining posts had to be reserved for direct recruits. Rounding up these figures by taking digits up to 0.50 as nill and beyond 0.50 as 1, four posts in the said cadre had to be filled in at a given point of time by promotees and Page 10 of 17 11 OA 347/14 one post had to be filled in by direct recruitment and as at the time when the vacancy arose by retirement of Dr.Rudra, there was already one direct recruit holding the post of Professor, the vacancy in question had to go to the departmental promote. As he was the seniormost Assistant Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology, his claim to be promoted to the said post should have been processed in accordance with law and the said post should not have been advertised for direct recruitment. This contention of the respondent was accepted by the Division Bench of the High Court. While dismissing the appeal on alternative ground, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disagreed with the reasoning of the High Court and held, inter alia, thus:
(i) "....The quota of percentage of departmental promotees and direct recruits has to be worked out on the basis of the roster points taking into consideration vacancies that fall due at a given point of time...."
(Paragraph 11)
(ii) ".....there is no question of filling up the vacancy created by the retirement of a direct recruit by a direct recruit or the vacancy created by a promote by a promote....."
(Paragraph 11)
(iii) "......Though the word "post" is in Rule 9 of the Rules, it cannot be said that it must necessarily refer to total posts in the cadre and not to vacancies. It is obvious that recruitment to fill up the vacancies as may be existing from time to time in the cadre is controlled by the quota or percentage of posts earmarked for promotees as compared to direct recruits......"
(Paragraph 11)
9. The principle as laid down in State of Punjab and others Vs. Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar and another (supra) was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in All India Federation of Central Excise v. Union of India and others, (1999) 3 SCC 384 Page 11 of 17 12 OA 347/14
10. Based on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar and another (supra) and All India Federation of Central Excise v. Union of India and others (supra), the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel& Training) issued the relevant instructions, vide O.M.No.AB.14017/2/1997-Estt.(RR)/Pt., dated 19.1.2007, which is reproduced below in extenso:
"No. O.M.No.AB.14017/2/1997-Estt.(RR)/Pt., Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel& Training) New Delhi, dated the 19th January, 2007 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Fifth Central Pay Commission's recommendations -
Revision of Pay Scales - amendment of Service Rules/Recruitment Rules.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's OM No.AB-14017/2/97-Estt.(RR) dated the 25th May,1998 on the subject noted above and to say that paragraph 2 of the said OM provided as follows:-
"The Supreme Court in its judgment in R.K.Sabharwal's case has ruled in favour of a change- over from the existing "vacancy" based reservation roster to "post" based roster. Under the existing policy the determination of different quotas for recruitment is vacancy-based. In order to comply with the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment, which has been implemented vide the DOPT OM No.36012/2/96-Estt.(Res.) dated the 2nd July, 1997, it will be necessary to amend the existing Service Rules/Recruitment Rules under column 11 of Annexure-1 in the DOP&T guidelines dated the 18th March,1988 to replace the words "percentage of the 'vacancies' to be filled by various methods" by "percentage of the 'posts' to be filled by various methods".Page 12 of 17 13 OA 347/14
2. The Supreme Court in its Judgment in CWP No. 5893 of 1997 decided on 18.12.1998 - State of Punjab & others Vs. Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar & another held as follows:-
"The quota of percentage of departmental promotees and direct recruits has to be worked out on the basis of the roster points taking into consideration vacancies that fall due at a given point of time.....there is no question of filling up the vacancy created by the retirement of a direct recruit by a direct recruit or the vacancy created by a promote by a promote"
3. The Court also held that the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in R.K.Sabharwal's case vs. State of Punjab & Others [(1995)1 SLR 791(SC)] in connection with Article 16(4) and the operation of roster for achieving the reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes as per the scheme of reservation, cannot be pressed in service for the scheme of method of appointment.
4. The Supreme Court referred the above-mentioned case in its judgment dated 22.2.1999 in All India Federation of Central Excise vs. The Union of India & others (IA Nos.4,6-8 in Writ Petition ( C ) No. 306 of 1988 with Writ Petition ( C ) No. 651 of 1997], and reiterated the above-mentioned decision.
5. It has, therefore, been decided to rescind the instructions contained in Para 2 of this Department's O.M. dated 25.5.98, reproduced in paragraph 1 of this OM. The column 11 of the Annexure 1, appended to this Department's O.M.No.AB- 14017/12/87-Estt.(RR) dated 18.3.1988 would continue in its form that existed before the issuance of OM dated 25.5.1998. For the sake of clarity, the column 11 of Annexure 1 would be as follows:-
Method of recruitment:
Whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/absorption & percentage of the vacancies to be filled by various methods.
6. In case column 11 of the Annexure 1 in regard to Recruitment Rules for posts has been amended by the ministries/departments in accordance with the instructions contained in the OM of 25.5.1998, the same may be amended/notified again, as indicated in paragraph No.5, in consultation with the Legislative Department. This may be done without making reference to the Department of Personnel & Training/Union Public Service Commission.
7. The attached Annexure illustrates how the post-based roster for reservation and vacancy-based roster for appointment under various methods are to be operated.
Page 13 of 17 14 OA 347/14
8. The reservation position for SCs/STs/OBCs would continue to be governed by the DOPT OM No.36012/2/96- Estt.(Res.) dated 2nd July 1997.
9. This would take effect from the date of issue and the past cases would not be reopened.
10. Hindi version will follow.
Sd/ (Smita Kumar) Director To All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India Copy to:
(i) The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi -110011 with reference to their communication No.
(ii) The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 10-Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.
Annexure to DOPT O.M.No.AB-14017/18/2000-Estt.(RR) dated 12.1.2007.
The term 'cadre strength' referred to in this Department's O.M.No.36012/2/96-Estt.(Res.) dated 2.7.1997 in relation to calculation of reservation/maintenance of reservation registers/rosters means the number of posts required to be filled by a particular mode of recruitment in terms of the applicable Recruitment Rules. In a grade comprising 200 posts, where the Recruitment Rules prescribe a ratio of 40:40:20 for direct recruitment, promotion and deputation respectively, the cadre strength of direct recruitment and promotion shall be 80 each. Since there is no reservation for posts to be filled by deputation, 40 posts will not be subject to reservation. The O.M. of 2.7.97 also provides that if there is any increase or decrease in the cadre strength, size of the reservation roster will change and the number of reserved posts will also increase or decrease accordingly.
When recruitment is made vacancy-based, it is possible that at any given point of time, the share of direct recruitment may increase and the share of promotion may correspondingly decrease, or vice versa. In such cases, cadre strength for direct recruitment and cadre strength for promotion would change from year to year. Consequently, the number of reserved posts in direct recruitment quota and promotion quota will also change from year to year.
The following illustration clarifies the position Illustration Page 14 of 17 15 OA 347/14 Suppose sanctioned strength of a grade is 1000 and the Recruitment Rules for the grade provide that 50% of the vacancies shall be filled by direct recruitment on an All India basis by open competition and 50% by promotion. Reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs in direct recruitment in this case will be 15%, 7.5% and 27% respectively and in promotion reservation will be 15% for SC and 7.5% for ST.
Suppose all the 1000 posts were filled in the year 2000 of which 500 i.e. 50% of the posts were filled by direct recruitment and 500 i.e. 50% of the posts were filled by promotion. The number of reserved posts in direct recruitment quota and promotion quota in that grade in the year 2000 would be as given below:
Direct Recruitment : SCs-75, STs-37, OBCs-135 Promotion: SCs-75, STs-37 Suppose in the year 2001, a total of 200 vacancies arose in the grade, of which 50 posts were vacated by candidates from the direct recruitment quota and 150 by candidates from the promotion quota. As a result of this, the number of incumbents in the direct recruitment quota became 450 and in the promotion quota 350. Since Recruitment Rules provide for filling of 50% of the vacancies by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion, 100 vacancies in the year 2001 will be filled by direct recruitment and 100 by promotion. Thus, in that year, the cadre strength for direct recruitment quota would become 550 and for promotion quota it would become 450. The number of reserved posts in the direct recruitment quota and promotion quota in that year will be as follows:
Direct Recruitment : SCs-82, STs-41, OBCs-148 Promotion: SCs-67, STs-33 ........."
11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar and another (supra) , and in All India Federation of Central Excise v. Union of India and others (supra) and the Government of India's instructions contained in O.M. dated 19.01.2007(ibid), the ratio of vacancies between the seniority quota and LDCE/examination quota in the grade of Office Superintendent has to be operated only against annual vacancies and not against posts. Admittedly, Page 15 of 17 16 OA 347/14 there were 119 vacancies in the post of Office Superintendent during the year 2012-13, and the official respondents filled only 30 vacancies under LDCE/examination quota. Thus, the official respondents were not justified in not allocating and filling 50% of the total vacancies (119) in the grade of Office Superintendent available during the year 2012-13 under the LDCE/examination quota, and in denying consideration of the cases of the applicants for promotion under the LDCE/examination quota on the basis of the results of the LDCE held on 8th and 9th December 2012. Therefore, the determination of vacancies both under the seniority quota and LDCE/examination quota and the filling of the same in the manner, as done by the official respondents, are unsustainable and liable to be interfered with.
12. In the light of our above discussions, the O.A. is allowed. The impugned communication dated 24.1.2014 (Annexure A/1) is quashed. The official respondents are directed to recalculate the vacancies in the post of Office Superintendent both under the seniority quota and LDCE quota for the year 2012-13 in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar and another (supra) and in All India Federation of Central Excise v. Union of India and others (supra), and the instructions contained in the DoP&T's O.M. dated 19.1.2007(ibid) and to consider the cases of the applicants and other similarly placed persons for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent under LDCE/examination quota on the basis of the results of the LDCE held on 8th and 9th December 2012. After completing this Page 16 of 17 17 OA 347/14 exercise, the official respondents shall publish the result of the LDCE conducted by them on 8.3.2014 for filling the vacancies under LDCE quota which arose during 2013-14.
13. All the pending MAs are disposed of accordingly.
14. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (SHEKHAR AGARWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
AN
Page 17 of 17