Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Tilak Raj vs Union Of India on 25 August, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA-2700/2014 MA-2250/2015 MA-1858/2015 Order Reserved on 19.08.2015 Order Pronounced on: 25.08.2015 Honble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) Honble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J) Shri Tilak Raj, S/o Late Shri C. Pal R/o 64-C, LIG, Prasad Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110 005. -Applicant (By Advocate: Shri P.P. Khurana Sr. Counsel, with Shri Karunesh Tandon for Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) Versus 1. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Road Transport & Highways Transport Bhavan 1 Parliament Street New Delhi-110 001. 2. National Highways Authority of India G-5&6, Sector 10 Dwarka, New Delhi-110 075. -Respondents (By Advocate: Shri A.K. Behera) O R D E R Per Sudhir Kumar, Member (A):
In this case very lengthy arguments, extending over more than two hours, were advanced before us, though the issue at hand for our determination in the instant case is very limited, and the applicant claims his case to be already covered by another judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal.
2. Facts of this case lie in a very narrow compass. The applicant is a deputationist in the Respondent-organization, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI, in short), who had joined the Respondent-organization on deputation from his parent organization, namely, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS, in short) as General Manager (Legal) w.e.f. 01.09.2008 (F/N) for a deputation period of five years, or until further orders, whichever is earlier, as per Annexure A-7 dated 09.09.2008. His term of deputation was later extended by a period of another two years, upto 31.08.2015, through Annexure A-21 dated 17.06.2013, with the consent of all the three parties concerned-the applicant, his parent organization, and the respondent-organization.
3. Through Circular dated 03.03.2011, the respondent-organization-NHAI decided to call applications from the General Managers who were on deputation with them, and who were willing to get absorbed, as per the following notified eligibility criteria, and they were requested to apply in the prescribed format enclosed thereto:-
CIRCULAR Applications are invited from the General Managers on deputation who are willing to get absorbed as per the following eligibility criteria are requested to apply in the prescribed format (enclosed):-
(I) At least two years continuous service on deputation basis in the Authority as on 01.01.2011.
(II) The applicant should be less than 56 years of age as on 01.01.2011.
(III) Consent of the cadre controlling authority of the parent department.
(IV) Discipline and Vigilance Clearance from the parent department.
2. The absorption shall be done in strict observation of the statutory reservations as prescribed.
3. The eligible officers who are willing to get absorbed in the NHAI may submit their application for the same latest by 14.03.2011 in the prescribed format along with requisite documents mentioned in the important Conditions of the Application Format. Submission of application/willingness for absorption will not confer any right for selection on absorption basis, at present or in future.
4. The shortlisted applicant shall be required to face the Selection Committee. The shortlisted candidates shall be intimated separately.
(Emphasis supplied).
4. His parent organization BIS had no objection to the fact that the applicant is seeking absorption with the Respondent-organization NHAI as General Manager (Legal), and his application for absorption in NHAI dated 05.03.2011 was forwarded by his parent organization BIS to NHAI vide letter dated 28.03.2011, after getting approval from the Competent Authority namely, the Director General of BIS. When he later requested a confirmation in this regard, a copy of the application, as had been forwarded on 28.03.2011 by BIS to NHAI, was again supplied to him through Annexure A-31 dated 17.07.2014. Even before that, the applicants parent organization BIS had forwarded his application through Proper Channel dated 07.07.2014 also (Annexure A-30).
5. Before the applications received by NHAI could be considered by the Screening Committee, a meeting was held on 28.08.2012 in the chambers of Honble Minister for Road Transport and Highways of Govt. of India to discuss the subject of extension of deputation tenure/absorption in respect of Manager (Tech), DGM(Tech) and GM (Tech) level officers of NHAI. Through the contents of the letter dated 20.09.2012 (Annexure A-15), it is seen that the following decisions had been taken in that meeting, and the following directions had been communicated by the Director, Establishment-II(B) Section, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRT&H, in short), Govt. of India, to the Chairman, NHAI:-
Sub: Extension of deputation tenure/absorption in respect of Manager (Tech), DGM(Tech) and GM(Tech) level officers in NHAI.
I am directed to say that in the meeting held on 28.08.2012 in the chamber of Honble Minister (RT&H) to discuss the above issue, the following decisions have been taken:-
(i) These officers who have completed more than ten years on deputation in NHAI may be repatriated.
(ii) The officers with ten or more years of remaining service may be considered for absorption if otherwise found appropriate by NHAI.
(iii) The officers must be rotated after five years on regular intervals.
2. NHAI is, therefore, requested to take necessary action on the above points and to expeditiously devise a suitable mechanism of absorption/recruitment to meet the shortage of personnel at NHAI. Action taken in this regard may please be communicated to the Ministry so as to inform the Honble Minister (RT&H) accordingly.
(Emphasis supplied).
6. However, within a month thereafter, vide letter dated 17.10.2012, those directions of the Minister were amended by stating as follows:-
No.A-12025/19/2008-E-II(B) New Delhi, the 17th October, 2012 To The Chairman, National Highways Authority of India, G-5&6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi.
Subject: Creation of a permanent cadre of NHAI-regarding.
Sir, I am directed to refer to NHAIs D.O. letter No. NHAI/11041/08/2010-HR.1(Pt.) dated 25.09.2012 addressed to the Secretary (MORTH) on the above subject and to say that after reconsideration of NHAIs request, the competent authority has decided as under:-
(i) The direction that those completing ten years on deputation be repatriated conveyed by this Ministrys letter of even number dated 20/09/2012 may be treated as withdrawn.
(ii) As far as the direction of the Ministry regarding 10 years remaining service for absorption is concerned, wherever, there are difficulties in getting people of desired qualifications, the NHAI Board, in very exceptional cases and for reasons to be explained and recorded in writing, may relax it for a maximum period of 3 years.
2. This issue with the approval of the Minister RT&H.
(Emphasis supplied).
7. When the Screening Committee Meeting was convened on 30.07.2013 for considering applications invited through Circular dated 03.03.2011 for the post of General Manager (Legal) in NHAI, it was seen by the Committee that only one application had been received, that of the applicant before us, and in Para-6 of the Minutes, (Annexure A-2), it was recorded as follows:-
. 6. As regards, Shri Tilak Raj, GM (Legal), NHAI on deputation the position as per the criteria of eligibility detailed vide Circular no.NHAI/11012/167/2011-HR-I dated 3rd March, 2011 (F/D) is as under :
S.No. Eligibility Criteria as per Circular dated 3rd March, 2011 Whether meets or not i.
At least two years continuous service on deputation basis in the Authority as on 01.01.2011.
Yes, as per application submitted Sh. Tilak Raj on deputation as GM (Legal) since 01.09.2008 i.e. more than two years.
ii.
The application should be less than 56 years of age as on 01.01.2011 The applicant has five years seven months of service remaining as on 01.01.2013. Committee remarked that the criteria of remaining years for retirement is relaxable upto Three years i.e. remaining service shall be within Seven years for consideration of NHAI Board as per MoRT&H direction per Para 2, 2.1 above (F/C). The directions of MoRT&H are dated 17th Oct. 2012. The application for GM(Legal) post is dated 3rd March, 2011 (F/D).
iii.
Consent of the cadre controlling authority of the parent department Yes, consent of Cadre vide letter B.S.Estt-III/7:059595 dt. 28.03.2011 is enclosed (F/B) iv Discipline and Vigilance Clearance from the parent department As per parent deptt. BIS Letter dt. 28.03.2011 (F/B) it is certified that no vigilance case is pending/ contemplated and D&AR has been communicated at time of release from BIS to NHAI for joining on deputation basis. These details regarding Disciplinary aspect need be provided/ensured by HR & Administration.
The Committee noted that the above is w.r.t. criteria of eligibility for consideration as per year 2011. The Screening committee has been instructed for screening now on 11.06.2013. The Committee noted that in similar cases of absorption Mgr (Tech), GM/Electronic etc. the referring as per NHAI rules has been carried out w.r.t. 1st January of the year of consideration i.e. 01.01.2013 in present case.
(Emphasis supplied).
8. Thereafter, in Paragraph 7, 7.1, 8 & 9, the Screening Committee took the view that except for the fact that the applicant did not meet the since modified criteria of his remaining service being less than 10 years, as included in the instructions issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, the applicant appeared to fulfil all the required criteria. In particular, in Para-8, it was specifically noted that he met the criteria as prescribed in the NHAIs initial advertisement inviting absorption applications, and that he was working in NHAI as GM (Legal) on deputation since 01.09.2008, i.e., more than two years.
9. There is a provision in the National Highways Authority of India (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Third Amendment Regulations, 2009, whereby the original Regulations of 1996 were amended, and a new Regulation 13, for absorption was introduced to be one of the methods for recruitment, which has been brought on record as Annexure A-8 of the OA. Regulation-13(5) laid down the criteria for absorption, and the Screening Committee had considered the case of the applicant against this very criteria when it met on 30.07.2013.
10. As against the criteria contained in Regulation-13 (5) (g), that the officer should be less than 56 years of age as on 1st day of January of the year in which the officer is being considered for absorption, it was noted by the Screening Committee (para 7/above) that he possesses this criteria, but it had then observed that consideration of his absorption can now only be as per the directives issued by the MoRT&H vide letters dated 20.09.2012 and 17.10.2012 (supra), which shall have to be followed, and, therefore, the NHAIs own criteria contained in Regulation 13(5) (g) shall not be relevant as applicable. In the end in Para-13 of its Minutes, the Screening Committee had, therefore, rejected the application of the applicant, by noting the following recommendations:-
13. In view of the above, the Screening Committee recommends as under :
i) The application of Shri Tilak Raj, GM(Legal), NHAI for absorption is not meeting the requirement of remaining service of ten years (or seven years with relaxation by NHAI Board) as in terms of MoRT&H policy order as in para 2, is also not satisfied for consideration of NHAI Board.
ii) As per application, the details of relevant experience is not clear from his application for consideration of absorption and as per discussion in Para 9 and 10.
iii) The application submitted is not as per the format specified by NHAI. The application is therefore liable for rejection as deliberated in Para 11.
iv) In reference to specific considerations by MoRT&H from post to post, as referred by HR & Admn. (Para 3.0), Screening Committee submits for HR & Admn. for consideration of Competent Authorities, if deemed, as a separate matter. (Emphasis supplied).
11. The case of the applicant is that the respondents have been unfair to him in not having applied their own Regulation-13 of the NHAI (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996, as they stood amended through the Third Amendment Regulations, 2009 dated 23.10.2009 (Annexure A-8) (supra), but have rather followed an administrative instructions, which was issued by the MoRT&H, first through a simple letter dated 20.09.2012, which instructions were later amended through another simple letter addressed to Chairman, NHAI dated 17.10.2012, both of which were against the NHAIs own prescribed Regulation-13.
12. The further argument of the applicant is that the very same instructions of MoRT&H dated 20.09.2012 were earlier challenged before this Tribunal in OA No. 901/2013 with 12 other connected OAs, in which the orders of this Tribunal were pronounced on 28.04.2014, and the Bench had, in the operative portion of its order, quashed and set aside those instructions issued by the MoRT&H through a simple letter, and the applicants of those 13 OAs have also since been given by NHAI the benefit of that judgment and order dated 28.04.2014, without the respondents having ever challenged the quashing by this Tribunal of the instructions of MoRT&H dated 20.09.2012. In that common order, the Coordinate Bench had held as follows:-
17. In the result, these OAs are allowed. We also declare that the Annexure A-2 order dated 20.09.2012 and the Annexure A-1 letter dated 07.11.2012 have been issued de hors the rules and, therefore, they are quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to delink the process of absorption of the Applicants initiated by them, pursuant to their Memorandum dated 28.11.2009 from the subsequent Memorandum dated 29.08.2012. The process of absorption initiated in terms of their Memorandum dated 28.11.2009 shall be finalized strictly in accordance with the National Highways Authority of India (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996 as amended vide National Highways Authority of India (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Third Amendment Regulations, 2009 and notified it on 23.10.2009. To the aforesaid extent, the decision of the Selection Committee held in October, 2012 pursuant to the circular dated 29.08.2012 shall also be reviewed. If the Applicants are found fit, they shall be absorbed in NHAI with all consequential benefits including their seniority reckoning the initial dates of their appointment on deputation basis. As far as the Private Respondents are concerned, their absorption shall be strictly based on their seniority on the deputation post. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Let a copy of this order be placed in all the files.
(Emphasis supplied).
13. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that though u/s 33 of the NHAI Act, 1988, provides for powers of the Central Government to issue directions, but those directions can only be on the questions of policy, and such directions cannot be in abrogation of Gazette Notified Subordinate Legislation, in the forms of the abovesaid Regulations, 1996, as amended in 2009 (supra).
14. On the other hand, the respondents have placed heavy reliance upon the powers of the Central Government u/s 33 of the NHAI Act, 1988, and supported the conclusion arrived at by the Screening Committee, in obedience of the instructions issued by the MoRT&H through their letter dated 20.09.2012 (supra), as amended through the letter dated 17.10.2012 (supra).
15. Heard. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant advanced his arguments on the above lines and submitted that when the instructions issued through a simple letter issued by the MoRT&H had been quashed by the common orders of this Tribunal dated 28.04.2014 in the above cited 13 OAs, and the Respondent-NHAI had not challenged that order, and had actually implemented the order, and had accepted the setting aside of the instructions issued by the MoRT&H, this Bench is now bound by that order of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, which has become final, and which has also been implemented thereafter by the respondents, without laying a challenge to the same.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that while passing the common order dated 28.04.2014 in the above mentioned 13 OAs, that Bench had not noticed the law as such, and the issue had not been decided by considering the facts of the case on merits, and that the common judgment and order was delivered by the Coordinate Bench without examining the correct legal position in this regard. He argued that this Bench ought to distinguish its findings, from that of the Coordinate Bench in that common order, by applying the principle of sub-silentio, since the order dated 28.04.2014 did not give sufficient and adequate reasoning and logic for having set aside the instructions of MoRT&H dated 20.09.2012, even though, in those cases, the respondents have chosen not to challenge that common order, and implemented it. In support of his contention, he further submitted that a deputationist cannot claim absorption as a matter of right, and that there was no right vested in the applicant for him to be able to lay a claim for absorption.
17. The learned counsel for the respondents cited the cases of State of Punjab and Others vs. Inder Singh and Others (1997) 4 SCC 372, and in particular Paragraphs 18 & 19 thereof, and another judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Kumal Nanda vs. Union of India and Another (2000) 5 SCC 362, and in particular Para-6 thereof. It is not necessary for us to reproduce these portions of the Honble Apex Courts judgments, as even the learned senior counsel for the applicant himself, in his reply arguments, submitted that the applicant is not claiming absorption as a matter of right, but is only pointing out the illegal manner in which his case of absorption had been rejected, and not properly considered by the Screening Committee, because the Screening Committee had chosen to follow the MoRT&H instructions, which have since been set aside by the common order of this Tribunal in the aforesaid 13 OAs dated 28.04.2014, instead of following their own NHAIs statutory regulations, as contained in the Regulation 13 (supra).
18. In support of his further contention that a sub-silentio judgment does not preclude this Bench from examining the law once again, the learned counsel for the respondents took us through the judgments in the case of State of U.P. and Another vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Another (1991) 4 SCC 139, and in particular paragraphs 39, 40 & 41 thereof, and the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488, and in particular Paragraph-20 thereof. He also relied upon the judgment of the Guwahati High Court in the case of Rama Kant Shandilya vs. Union of India & Ors. in WP (C) No.6328/2014 dated 17.06.2015, and in particular Paragraph-17 thereof, which also we need not reproduce here.
19. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts of this case, and the issues of law involved. Firstly, we are not convinced by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that we can utilize the principle of sub-silentio, and are at liberty to disagree with the judgment and order of the Coordinate Bench dated 28.04.2014, which has also become final, as it was accepted by the respondent themselves, and it was not contested by the learned counsel for the respondents that that order has since been implemented.
20. As per the Paragraph-17 of the Coordinate Bench judgment and order, already reproduced above, that Bench had clearly set aside the directions issued by the MoRT&H through their letter dated 20.09.2012. Therefore, prima-facie itself, no objection can now be taken by the respondents relying upon the Authority of those instructions issued by the MoRT&H through a simple letter.
21. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant had relied upon the judgments in the case of Rameshwar Prasad vs. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. and Others (1999) 8 SCC 381, in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others: 1978 (1) SCC 405, and in Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18. He had also submitted that his case is based upon the statutory Regulations notified on 23.10.2009 by the Third Amendment Regulations of 2009, introducing a new Regulation-13 in the NHAI (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996. He submitted that as per sub-Regulation (7) of that Regulation-13, it is clear that the power to relax any of the provisions of that Regulation-13 will remain only with the Authority. He further submitted that the Authority, in-turn, has been defined u/s 2(a) of the NHAI Act, 1988, as follows:-
(a) Authority means the National Highways Authority of India constituted under section 3.
22. Section-3, as referred to in the definition Clause, further defines the Constitution of the Authority as follows:-
3. Constitution of the Authority- (1) With effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf, there shall be constituted for the purposes of this Act an Authority to be called the National Highways Authority of India.
(2) The Authority shall be a body corporate by the name aforesaid having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power, subject to the provisions of this Act, to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and to contract and shall by the said name sue and be sued.
(3) The Authority shall consist of-
(i) a Chairman;
(ii) not more than five full-time members; and
(iii) not more than four part-time members, to be appointed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents had heavily relied upon Section-33 of the same Act, 1988, which lays down as follows:-
33. Power of the Central Government to issue directions- (1) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act, the Authority shall, in the discharge of its functions and duties under this Act, be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give to it in writing from time to time.
(2) The decision of the Central Government whether a question is one of policy or not shall be final.
(Emphasis supplied).
24. The moot question of law, therefore, is as to whether any directions can be issued by the Central Government under the specific provisions of Section-33 of the said Act, as above, to the NHAI, in regard to questions of policy, in abrogation of statutory Rules. The Coordinate Bench had on 28.04.2014 not agreed with the submissions of the respondents in this regard, and had declared the instructions issued by the Government through the letter dated 20.09.2012 as being de hors the Rules, and had, therefore, quashed and set it aside.
25. Firstly, as per the law as laid down in this regard, we are bound by that order of a Coordinate Bench, which has attained finality. Secondly, we also most respectfully agree with that ratio of the judgment and order of the Coordinate Bench, and would like to strive to supplement that reasoning and logic of the Coordinate Bench. The provisions of Regulation-13, Gazette Notified, for bringing amendments to the NHAI (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996, cannot be over-ruled merely by issuance of a letter by the MoRT&H, containing the details of conclusions of a meeting held in the chambers of Honble Minister of Road Transport and Highways, who is not a part of the Authority under Section-3 of NHAI, and is an interloper, or perhaps even a persona non grata, in so far as the NHAI Act, 1988, is concerned. It has not been the case of the respondents that the Minister was performing any of the delegated functions of the President of India under the concerned Constitutional Provisions.
26. The flimsiness of the stand of the respondents in this regard can be further gauged from the very fact that even though the letter dated 20.09.2012 (Annexure A-15), as reproduced in Para-5 above, had issued certain fickle-minded instructions on the basis of a meeting held in the Ministers Chambers on 28.08.2012, in less than one month thereafter, through Annexure A-16 letter dated 17.10.2012, those instructions had been changed, without providing any explanation or logic whatsoever for that change in instructions, and since no reference has been made in that later letter dated 17.10.2012 to any subsequent meeting or discussions having taken place, with or without the Minister, such a change in instructions issued by the MoRT&H, without even a proper discussion having taken place in this regard, to prescribe a new formulation, as has been reproduced by us in Para-6 above of this order, cannot be said to qualify the requirement of Section 33 of the Act.
27. Thus, such fickle-minded directions, issued on the whims and fancies of the Minister (or Officers of MoRT&H), only by way of simple letters signed by a Director level officer on 20.09.2012, and an Under Secretary level officer on 17.10.2012, cannot in any manner qualify to be instructions of the Central Govt. on matters of Policy u/s 33 of the Act, and, also, cannot abrogate the powers vested in the Board of NHAI as per sub-Regulation-(7) of Regulation-13 of the NHAI (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations (supra). This Regulation of 1996, as amended in 2009, is in the nature of a Subordinate Legislation, passed and Gazette Notified in respect of an Act passed by the Parliament. The amendments, if any, to such Subordinate Legislation, also have to be on an equal footing, and had to be Gazette Notified by an appropriate authority, by either the NHAI itself, or the Central Government. If at all the Central Government is competent to issue such a direction, to change the Gazette Notified Subordinate Legislation in the nature of the NHAI (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996, as amended in 2009, such instructions of the Central Government u/s 33 of the Act regarding Policy Matters also shall have to be tested as being in respect of a Policy Matter, and then Gazette Notified, and shall then have to be placed on the table of both Houses of Parliament, because they have the effect of amending the Subordinate Legislation of an Act passed by the Parliament.
28. Further, Section-33 of the Act is not a blanket license to the fickle-mindedness of the Minister, who has been assigned no role whatsoever under the NHAI Act, 1988, and also to any whims and fancies of the officers of the MoRT&H, at any level whatsoever. Therefore, it is held once again that the Coordinate Bench had very rightly quashed and set aside the said letter dated 20.09.2012, since the Minister was not competent enough under the NHAI Act, 1988, to hold a meeting in his chamber, and to decide something and issue any instructions otherwise than what has been provided through a Subordinate Legislation enacted under an Act passed by the Parliament, in its original form in 1996, and the third amendment to which was Gazette Notified in 2009.
29. Therefore, the OA is allowed to the extent that the decision of the Screening Committee as contained in the Minutes of its Meeting dated 30.07.2013, as recorded in Para-13 (i) (supra), is quashed and set aside, as having been illegal, for having followed illegal instructions of MoRT&H, which instructions themselves could not have been issued, in supersession of Subordinate Legislation properly Gazette Notified on 23.10.2009 (supra).
30. However, we cannot put ourselves in the shoes of the Screening Committee, and decide the matter on the eligibility of the applicant for his absorption. We can only remove the arbitrariness introduced in the Minutes of the Screening Committee held on 30.07.2013, because of the illegal instructions issued by the MoRT&H, which instructions the Ministry was not permitted to issue as per law.
31. Therefore, while allowing the OA partly, and declaring that the action of the Screening Committee in declaring the applicant to be ineligible on account of instructions issued by the MoRT&H was illegal, we direct a meeting of the Screening Committee to be held forth-with, preferably before 31.08.2015, to examine the eligibility of the applicant for his absorption against the post of General Manager (Legal) in NHAI, for which he was the sole applicant, strictly only as per Regulation 13 (supra) .
32. We further clarify that in case there is any delay in holding the Screening Committee Meeting beyond 31.08.2015, the applicants deputation with NHAI shall be continued till the Minutes of the Screening Committee to be held afresh now are finalized, and are approved by the Competent Authority, i.e., the Board of NHAI, under its powers as contained in sub-Regulation-7 of Regulation-13 of the NHAI (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996, as amended in 2009.
33. With these directions, the OA is partly allowed, but there shall be no order as to costs.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Sudhir Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) cc.