Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Mahender Singh vs Union Of India on 6 November, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA NO. 787/2008
MA NO.667/2008
New Delhi, this the 6th day of November, 2008
HONBLE MR. SHANKER RAJU, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A)
1. Sh. Mahender Singh, aged about 32
S/o Sh. Ram Phool,
Department of Histopathology,
Safdarjang Hospital,
New Delhi.
R/o E-27, B Krishnan Vihar,
New Delhi-110041.
2. Bhudev Singh S/o Sh. Mahilal
Nursing Attendant Rank No. 4450,
Department of Lab Medicine
Safdarjang Hospital,
New Delhi.
R/o 1/3676 Ram Nagar Extn.
Gali No. 2, Loni Road,
Shahadara, Delhi-110 032.
3. Laxman Singh,
S/o Sh. Man Singh,
Department of Radiology,
Safdarjang Hospital,
R/o Q.No. 553, Sector-2,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110 0022.
4. Aditya Dungdung,
S/o Sh. Neol Dungdung,
Department of Medical Board,
Safdarjang Hospital,
New Delhi
R/o 722/2 Sector 2, Sadiq Nagar,
New Delhi-110 049.
5. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Mange Ram
Department of Bio Chemistry,
Safdarjang Hospital,
New Delhi.
R/o H.No.633, Village & P.O. Karla,
New Delhi-110 081.
6. Ms. Anita Grover
W/o Sh. Jyoti Grover,
Safdarjang Hospital,
New Delhi.
R/o RZB-18-Jeven Park,
Near Janakpuri, Pankha Road,
New Delhi-100 059.
7. Sh.Sanjay Mishra,
S/o Sh.V.N.Mishra,
Department of Lab Medicine
Safdarjang Hospital,
New Delhi.
R/o D-21, West Kidwai Nagar,
New Delhi-110 023.
8. Sh. Rakesh Kumar,
S/o Sh.Dhan Pal Singh,
Department of Admn.II,
Safdarjang Hospital,
New Delhi.
R/o K-113, Kastura Nagar,
New Delhi.
9. Dharam Pal,
S/o Sh. Shankar Lal,
Department of Cardiology,
Safdarjang Hospital,
New Delhi.
R/o I-12, Type I West Kidwai Nagar,
New Delhi-110 023.
10. Davinder Singh,
S/o Bhagwan Dass,
Department of Kitchen
Safdarjang Hospital,
New Delhi.
R/o H. No. 133, Village Khirki,
Post Office Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi 110 017
11. Shri Narayan Das,
S/o Shri Ram Phal,
Department of Kitchen
Safdarjang Hospital,
New Delhi.
R/o 982, Sector-2, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi 110 022
12. Shri Subhash Chand,
S/o Shri Sher Singh,
Department of Lab Medicine,
Safdarjang Hospital,
New Delhi.
R/o F-537, Dakshinpuri,
New Delhi 110 023
13. Surender Singh
S/o Shri Sultan Singh Rathee,
Department of Histopathology,
Safdarjan Hospital,
New Delhi
R/o Villagle Aurangabad,
P.O. Bhadurgarh Jhajjar,
Haryana 124 507
14. Prakash Chandra,
S/o Late Shri Mathura Datt,
Department of Histopathology,
Safdarjan Hospital,
New Delhi
R/o B-18, Type-I,
West Kidwai Nagar,
New Delhi 110 023
15. Devendra Kumar,
S/o Shri Rampal Singh,
Department of Histopathology,
Safdarjan Hospital,
New Delhi
R/o 1/3607, Ram Nagar Extn.,
Loni Road, Shahdara,
Delhi 110 032
16. Shri Vinod Kumar,
S/o Shri Chandu Lal
Department of Microbiology,
Safdarjang Hospital,
New Delhi.
R/o Q.No.1284, R.K. Puram
Sector-5, New Delhi-110 022.
17. Shri Nirmal,
S/o Shri Ishwar Singh,
Department of S.T.D. Lab.,
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi
R/o H. No.515/11,
Adarsh Nagar,
Sonepat (Haryana)
18. Shri Dharmpal,
S/o Shri Jal Singh,
Department of S.T.D. Lab.,
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi
R/o D-8, West Kidwai Nagar,
New Delhi 110 023
19. Ms. Banita,
S/o Shri Danial,
Department of Biochemistry,
Safdarjung Hospital
New Delhi
R/o 512, Sector-5,
Pushp Vihar, New Delhi
20. Satish Kumar,
S/o Shri Barhm Das,
Department of Biochemistry,
Safdarjung Hospital,
New Delhi
R/o 5/149, Dakshinpuri Extn.,
Delhi-110 062
21. Shri Ashok Kumar,
S/o Shri Mange Ram,
Department of Respiratory Medicine,
Safdarjung Hospital,
New Delhi
R/o 1/3607, Ram Nagar Extn.,
Loni Road, Shahdara
Delhi 110 032
22. Shri Suresh Joshi,
S/o Shri Bharo Datt Joshi,
Department of EOT,
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi
R/o D-382, East of Kidwai Nagar,
New Delhi 110 023
23. Shri Pradeep Kumar,
S/o Shri Ramayam Mehto,
Deptt. of Dental,
Safdarjung Hospital,
R/o H.No. 65, Block A,
Gali No.4,
Baba Colony, Buradi,
Delhi 110 032
24. Bhopal Singh,
S/o Shri Lal Singh,
Department of 10(G),
Safdarjung Hospital,
New Delhi
R/o H.No.27, Raj Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029
25. Vijay Rana,
S/o Shri S.S. Rana,
Department of Biochemistry,
Safdarjung Hospital,
New Delhi
R/o D-728, East of Kidwai Nagar,
New Delhi 110 023
26. Narpat Singh,
S/o Shri Sher Singh,
Department of Biochemistry,
Safdarjung Hospital,
New Delhi
R/o F-357, Dakshin Puri,
New Delhi 110 062
27. Ms. Renu Negi,
D/o Shri Jamman Rawat,
Department of Nursery V,
Safdarjung Hospital
New Delhi
R/o H.No.325, Sector-1,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-22
28. Ms. Ashu,
W/o Shri Jitender Kumar Babutta,
Department of Telephone Exchange,
Safdarjung Hospital,
New Delhi
R/o H.No.1796, Sector-3,
M.B. Road, New Delhi
29. Mukesh Kumar,
S/o Shri Chanderpal Chauhan,
Department of Lab. Medicine,
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi
R/o D-14, Type-1, West Kidwai Nagar,
New Delhi 110 023
30. Anil Kumar,
S/o Shri Amrit Lal,
Department of Lab Medicine,
Safdarjung Hospital,
New Delhi
R/o A/207, Dakshin Puri,
New Delhi 110 062
.Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Department of Health,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Directorate General of Health Services,
Through its Director General,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi
3. Safdarjung Hospital,
Through its Medical Superintendent,
New Delhi 110 029
4. All India Council for Technical
Education,
Through its Secretary,
I.G. Stadium, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi 110 002
Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh with Shri R.V. Singh for R-1 to R-3
None for Respondent No.4)
O R D E R
By Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A):
MA No.667/2008 under rule 4(5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together in a single application is allowed.
2. Applicants, 30 in number, are Group D employees of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and have acquired one year Service Training Course from the same Hospital. In the present OA, they are challenging the virus of the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, Laboratory Assistant (Group-C Post) Recruitment Rules, 2005 (in short Rules) to the extent of Columns 9 and 12 prescribing for the promotional quota posts to be filled by only Laboratory Attendants instead of all Class IV employees and adding the new qualification of Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology (DMLT).
2.1 The OA seeks quashing of the aforesaid columns 9 and 12 of the Rules with a direction to frame a new set of Rules, if so advised. Besides quashing the advertisement dated 1-7 March 2008 to fill up the posts allegedly meant for promotion quota by direct recruitment under the garb of failing which clause has also been sought. In response to the prayer for interim relief, a direction had been given vide our order dated 24.4.2008 that though the recruitment to the post of Laboratory Assistant may go on but final results shall not be declared.
3. The OA states that the earlier 1987 Recruitment Rules (RR) for the post of Laboratory Assistants (LA) had stipulated the promotional quota posts (50%) to be filled from all Group D staff of the Hospital with the following educational qualifications:-
8. 1. Matriculation or its equivalent qualification from a recognized Board.
DMLT (Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology/In service Training Course of one year duration from Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi 3.1 It is averred that the impugned provisions in the new RR run contrary to the Respondents stand in the CWP No.3018/2000 (Common Cause (a registered Society) vs. Union of India) relating to a PIL on alleged irregularities in the Safdarjung Hospitals health care system and the OA No.2353/2002 (Safdarjung Hospital Karamchari Sangharsh Union and Ors vs. Union of India) challenging an advertisement dated 16.6.2002 for filling up the Lab. Assistants post by direct recruitment. In this OA, the Respondents had taken an unambiguous stand that in the proposed RR for the Lab. Assistants posts the eligibility criteria for the promotional quota was not under challenge. On this very basis the Tribunal had disposed of the OA with the finding that the changes proposed in the RR did not block the promotional prospects of the feeder category employees and, therefore, the apprehensions of the applicants were not well founded.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants, Shri S.K. Gupta, would submit that the revised RRs were in severe contravention of the undertaking given by the Respondents in OA No.2353/2002, and had blocked the promotional prospects of the Group D employees of Safdarjung Hospital, the category to which the applicants belonged. He would further advert that because of the stipulated conditions in the present RR, the promotion quota was not workable as none of the employees fulfilled the requisite qualifications (para 5(I) of the OA). The Respondents had not started the DMLT course which could enable the in-service employees to upgrade their technical qualifications. The course being run presently was by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to which the applicants were not eligible; besides the stipulations of age and educational qualifications kept them out of its purview.
4.1 The learned counsel would also refer to the comparable Recruitment Rules of Sucheta Kriplani Hospital (R-2 with the Rejoinder) which does not stipulate DMLT as a criteria for filling up the promotional quota of Laboratory Assistants. In support, he would also refer to some of the judicial pronouncements emphasizing the importance of providing reasonable promotional opportunities to the Government Employees:-
i) Raghunath Prasad Singh vs. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar & Ors, 1988 (Supp) SCC 519
ii) Council of Scientific and Industrial Research & Anr. vs. K.G.S. Bhatt & Anr., (1989) 4 SCC 635
iii) Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain vs Union of India, 1990(1) S.C. 297 4.2 Therefore, under the auspices of the new Rules, the Respondents were alleged to be impinging on the promotional quota and trying to fill that also by direct recruitment under the garb of failing which clause. On this ground of alleged arbitrariness, the advertisement dated 1-7 March 2008 (Annexure A/2) advertising filling up of five vacancies of Laboratory Assistants by direct recruitment has been assailed.
5. The OA is vehemently contested by the Respondents. The 2005 Rules are averred to be in compliance to the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.3018/2000 in the case of Common Cause (a Registered Society). Further, the pre-appointment technical qualification for the post of Laboratory Assistant is said to have reached its finality and the issues already settled on the principle of res-judicata.
5.1 Relying on the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjuna Rao & Ors vs. State of Andhara Pradesh & Others, (1990) 2 SCC 707, Shri R.N. Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents would assert that prescribing the necessary eligibility qualifications was a sovereign function of the Executive and outside the purview of the Tribunal. He would also vehemently justify the present RR on imperatives of patient care in the age of technological advancement. He would further assert that the post of Laboratory Assistant is a technical classified as selection post. The different RR for Sucheta Kriplani Hospital would also be justified as per the functional requirements of different Institutions. With a view to expose alleged unreasonableness of the applicants stand, the learned counsel would also advert to Annexure R-2. This is meant to be a letter from Shri Bhudev Singh, one of the applicants, refusing promotion as O.T. Assistant as he had been working as a Lab. Assistant since 1991 and to be due for promotion as L.A. Citing this, the learned counsel would argue that dictating the terms of promotion could not be a right of the employees.
6. It is settled law that formulation of Recruitment Rules for its employees is within the purview of the Executive. This would also include prescribing the necessary eligibility criteria for different categories of posts. Needless to say, the administrative requirements have to take the foremost place and there cannot be two views about it. However, as has been held by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments enabling provisions for reasonable promotional avenues to the employees is also a valid consideration while formulating the RR. A neglect of this aspect can be to the detriment of the ultimate objectives which an Organization seeks to achieve. We would like to refer to the dicta of the Honble Apex Court in the cases cited before us in support of the OA -
i) Raghunath Prasad Singh vs. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar & Ors, 1988 (Supp) SCC 519 -
4. Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. .
ii) Council of Scientific and Industrial Research & Anr. vs. K.G.S. Bhatt & Anr., (1989) 4 SCC 635 -
9. ... It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organization public or private does not hire a hand but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organization not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system.
iii) Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain vs Union of India, 1990(1) S.C. 297 -
7. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. .. (emphasis supplied) 6.1 As per the new Recruitment Rules of 2005, the posts of Laboratory Assistants are classified as General Central Service Group C Non-Gazetted, Non-Ministerial posts to be filled up on selection basis. Both by the old Rules as well as the new Rules, the modus operandi for filling up these posts is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. Hence it is not the stand of the Respondents that these posts are required to be kept totally outside the purview of promotion. The difference, however, is in the scope of the feeder categories. While as per the old RR, the feeder categories for promotion encompassed a wider area of all Group D posts, the same as per the new RR has been restricted to only Laboratory Attendants. It is averred by the Respondents in their counter in para 4.1 that there are several categories of Group D posts. This narrowing of the area of consideration is one of the grievances of the applicants.
6.2 The applicants contention that in the present form, the RR are not workable to provide any real promotional avenues to the feeder categories in this Respondent-Institution has not been disputed on facts by the Respondents. As per the earlier Rules, the educational qualification prescribed was Matriculation or its equivalent. This has now been substituted as 10+2 in Science subjects. The additional stipulation of prescribing a Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology recognized by the AICTE has been justified by the Respondents on the ground of functional necessity as well as judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.3018 of 2000.
6.3 In view of the key importance of the order in the aforesaid CWP, we may discuss it a little elaborately. This Writ Petition was in the form of a PIL by a registered Society named Common Cause bringing to the notice of the Court certain alleged irregularities existing in the health care system in Safdarjung Hospital with respect to the training course in Medical Laboratory Technology. This course was questioned on grounds of its not being approved by the All India Council of Technical Education as per the provisions of AICTE Act, 1987 and also not recognized by the Department of Technical Education, Ministry of HRD. Immediate direction for closure of the unrecognized illegal course in Medical Laboratory Technology run at the Safdarjung Hospital had been sought. In this context, the Honble High Court took note of the submissions made by the Respondents, which included the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare also before it. The following portions are relevant:-
After notice Replies have been filed and are on the record and today Additional Affidavit of Dr. A.N. Sinha, Chief Medical Officer (Hospital Administrative) in the Department of Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, has been filed. It is stated that in the meeting which was held on 10th April, 2001 a decision has been taken to update the knowledge of Laboratory personnel, but to continue to conduct Medical Laboratory Technology Diploma Course as per the guide-lines of All India Council for Technical Education. Suitable amendments to the Recruitment Rules of Laboratory Assistant should be recommended to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It has been stated in the affidavit that the Medical Laboratory Technology Course of one year duration has been discontinued from current academic year and it has been assured that Safdarjung Hospital has prepared a separate syllabus and prospectus to conduct two years Medical Laboratory Technology Diploma Course in the Hospital. It has submitted a proposal for the approval / recognition of two years Medical Laboratory Technology Diploma Course to All India Council for Technical Education. Proposal is stated to have been submitted to the Directorate General of Health Services for amendments in the Recruitment Rules so that only candidates qualified in Medical Laboratory Technology Diploma from recognized instituti9ons approved by All India Council for Technical Education are considered for appointment to the post of Laboratory Assistant.
We treat the statement made in the Affidavit on record and in view of this statement the Petitioner states that the petition does not survive.
The Petition stands disposed of. Hence the applicants contention that the present Rules are contrary to the stand of the Respondents in this CWP does not seem to be borne out by facts. The discontinuation of the in-service one year training course as well as amendment of the RR so as to make the posts of Laboratory Assistant filled by candidates qualified in MLTD approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) are thus justified in terms of the aforesaid order of the Honble High Court of Delhi.
6.4 However as would be clear from the extracted portions of the Honble High Courts order, the focus there was on the need of prescribing an appropriate technical qualification duly recognized by the competent body. It did not have an occasion to consider the administrative ramifications of the proposed changes in filling up the promotional quota posts from feeder categories. This aspect, however, was the subject matter of the subsequent OA No.2353/2002 at the stage when amendments in the R.Rs were still in the pipeline. The stand of the respondents, which involved the Union Ministry of Health, about the proposed changes inter alia sought to reconcile professional requirements for upgradation of knowledge of Lab. personnel in the interest of patient care with a continuity to provide reasonable promotional opportunities to the feeder categories keeping ground realities in view. It also synergized the requisite follow up action as a result of the judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court with balancing the need for providing promotional avenues for the feeder category employees. The following averments need to be extracted to drive home the point:-
4.3 to 4.5 That in reply to the contents of paras No. 4.3 to 4.5 of the O.A., it is submitted that the post of Lab Assistant is filled up in two manners i.e. 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. It is further submitted that the recruitment rules in the case of direct recruitment has been proposed for amendment because the technology is going to be advance day by day. It is pertinent to mention here that a Civil Writ Petition bearing No.3018/2000 is pending before the Honble High Court of Delhi, wherein the petitioners have requested to direct the respondents to make suitable amendments in the recruitment rules due to the advancement of technology and requirement of upgradation of knowledge of Lab Personnel in Public and Patient Care interest. It is relevant to note here that the prescribed changes in the recruitment rules for the direct recruitment candidates were also sent to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the approval has been obtained to fill up the post on the basis of the proposed recruitment rules. It is once again reiterated herein that in the case of promotion, the eligibility criteria neither being changed nor being proposed. Therefore, no arbitrary decision / action has been taken by the hospital administration. Hence, the allegations levied by the applicants against the respondents are wrong and the same are bad in the eyes of law. (emphasis supplied) 6.5. These submissions by the Respondents had weighed with the Tribunal in dismissing the OA (2353/2002) as there being no justification for apprehension on the part of the applicants that by the proposed changes in the R.R. their promotional avenues would be adversely affected. The following concluding paragraph of the order dated 24.7.2003 is relevant:-
5. The applicants, who are already working, who have one year training course of MLT, are eligible for being considered against the promotion quota, which works out of 50% meant for the direct recruitment wherein keeping in mind the advancement of the technology, the authorities have decided to call candidates with higher qualification. There is nothing irregular about it. If, however, the persons who are already working earlier want to come over to the stream of Lab Assistant / Technical Assistants against the direct recruitment quota they would have to satisfy the qualification of MLT Diploma. This cannot be considered the unreasonable on any count. As the respondents have clearly pointed out that the advancement is for filling up the vacancies on direct recruitment quota, applicants cannot have any grievance. Since 50% of the post is kept for promotion quota to which the applicants belong their interests are safeguarded. It is not for them to indicate that as to how to fix the academic qualification for direct recruitment. (emphasis supplied) 6.6 In the aforesaid background, the marked departure in the 2005 R.R. from the committed stand of the Respondents before a statutory judicial forum and extending the conditions for educational and technical qualification envisaged for direct recruitment to promotion quota lacks justifiability. It also goes against the settled law of consistency being the cornerstone of administration of justice. For the reasons mentioned already in para 6.4 above, we also do not find it tenable that the impugned provisions of the 2005 RR are in pursuance of the Honble High Courts directions in CWP No.3018/2000.
6.7 We also find that in the present scheme of things, the applicants belonging to Class IV categories do not have any real promotional avenues. The learned counsel could not provide a satisfactory answer to our query as to what other promotional avenues other than promotion as Lab. Assistant did Group D employees in Safdarjung Hospital have. We also could not understand the supposed difference of retaining dissimilar yardsticks on the point of MLTD in case of promotion quota posts of Lab. Assistants in Safdarjung Hospital and Sucheta Kriplani Hospital. The fact that no steps have been taken by the Respondents to evolve special MLTD to meet the requirements of the in-service category candidates of feeder categories only betrays a callous attitude on the part of the Respondents.
7. At this juncture we quote with respect the dicta by the Honble Supreme Court justifying judicial intervention in cases of non-existence of promotional avenues for employees. In A. Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors v. S. Prushotham & Ors, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 279, it was held as under:
30. Although mere chance of promotion is not a fundamental right, but right to be considered therefor is. In that view of the matter, any policy whereby all promotional avenues to be promoted in respect of a category of employees for all times to come cannot be nullified and the same would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution of India. (emphasis supplied)
7.1 Also in Food Corporation of India & Ors vs. Parashotam Das Bansal & Ors, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 76, holding an opportunity for promotion as normal incidence of service it was opined that in cases of non-existence of promotional avenues resulting in stagnation for a long time, superior courts have jurisdiction to issue directions for framing of an appropriate scheme though modalities may be left to be decided by the authority concerned. The reversal of the committed stand of the respondents and a complete blocking of the erstwhile promotional opportunities of the applicants also attracts a violation of the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel held to be akin to natural justice, reasonableness and fair play.
7.2 The learned counsel for the Respondents has referred to the rulings by the Apex Court in Mallikarjuna Rao & Ors (supra). In view of the note of caution sounded in this case against Courts usurping the rule making powers of the executive or even assuming a supervisory role, we have the onerous task of treading the narrow path with circumspection. The exceptional clause of safeguarding the rights and benefits already earned carved out in P.U. Joshi & Ors v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad & Ors, (2003) 2 SCC 632, is relevant considering the peculiar facts of the instant case:
There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service (emphasis supplied) We note that as per the 1987 RRs, applicants did have the eligibility to be considered for promotion as Laboratory Assistants, which rights have now been taken away by the impugned provisions of the amended RRs.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the OA is partly allowed and columns No. 9 and 12 of the Recruitment Rules, 2005 are struck down. The matter is remitted to the Respondents to reconsider the relevant provisions in the light of their own stand in the OA No.2353/2002, the arguments by the applicants in the present OA and our deliberations in the body of the order. This is to be done by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We would, however, like to clarify that the follow up action in filling up of five vacancies by direct recruitment as a result of the advertisement dated 1-7 March, 2008 will not be effected provided they do not impinge on the promotional quota. There shall be no order as to costs.
(VEENA CHHOTRAY) (SHANKER RAJU)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/Pkr/