Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Yogesh Kumar vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 8 August, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.2571/2012 New Delhi, this the 8th day of August, 2012 Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) Shri Yogesh Kumar, S/o Ram Prakash, R/o House No.1/4229, Ram Nagar Extn., Gali No.9, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. applicant (By Advocate : Shri Daleep Singh) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi Through, Its Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002. 2. The Principal Secretary, Directorate of Training & Technical Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Muni Maya Ram Marg, Pitampura, Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110001. Respondents. ORDER (ORAL) Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) :
The applicant, appointed as skilled worker under the respondent No.2 in the year 2000, is agitating claims of promotion as Foreman Instructor Printing Technology as a SC category candidate. It is submitted that despite the applicant being eligible as per the 2004 RRs and despite there being a vacancy in the post, the applicant has been deprived of the promotion. Along with the OA, copies of letters from the UPSC have been enclosed (dated 31.08.2010 Annex-A/5 and 15.12.2010 Annex.-A/8). By the letter of 15.12.2010, the following has been observed by the UPSC:-
The Department may, therefore, examine the representation dated 11.10.2010 of Shri Yogesh Kumar forwarded with the letter, referred to above at their end in the light of instructions of the Government and the representation be intimated suitably.
2. It is also noted that the applicant has submitted a representation to the Principal Secretary to the Department of Training & Technical Education, GNCTD (respondent No.2) dated 21.1.2011 (Annex./10). This representation interalia makes a mention of some candidates who are stated to have been promoted against future vacancies.
3. Shri Daleep Singh, learned counsel for applicant would submit that at this stage, the applicant would be satisfied by a time bound direction to the respondent No.2 for considering the representation of the applicant and passing a speaking and reasoned order. Considering the averments in the OA and the submissions by the learned counsel for applicant, we find this an appropriate case for directions to the respondents to take a considered view in the matter on the representation made by the applicant.
4. Resultantly, the OA is disposed in limine by directing respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 21.01.2011, along with treating the instant OA as a supplementary representation, by a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The registry is directed to ensure receipt of a copy of our order and the OA with the respondent No.2.
( Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma ) ( Dr. Veena Chhotray )
Member (J) Member (A)
rk