Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Chandra Sen vs Union Of India: Through on 16 October, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No. 714/2012 Reserved On:14.10.2014 Pronounced On:16 .10.2014 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A) Shri Chandra Sen S/o Shri Tole Ram Sr. Engineering Assistant, Doordarshan K Kendra Hissar (Haryana). Applicant By Advocate: Mrs. Meenu Mainee. Versus Union of India: Through 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India), New Delhi. 3. Director General, All India Radio, Akashvani Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. Dy. Director Administration (E) All India Radio, Akashvani Bhawan, New Delhi. .Respondents By Advocate: Shri S.M. Arif. ORDER
G. Geroge Paracken, Member(J) This is a second round of litigation by the Applicant. He had earlier approached this Tribunal at Lucknow Bench vide OA No.67/2009. His claim was for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in terms of the select lists of August 2007 and August 2008. The said OA was disposed of vide order dated 30.03.2009 with the direction to the Respondents to consider his representation dated 22.12.2008 made in that regard within two months. His contention was that the Respondents were required to consider him for promotion in terms of DOP&Ts instructions contained in their OM No.36012/17/2002-Estt.(Res.) dated 06.11.2003 regarding exchange of reservation between SC/ST employees. The relevant part of the said Memorandum reads as under:-
B. In cases of Promotion:
(i) In cases of promotion including promotion by selection form Group C to Group B, within Group B and from Group B to the lowest rung of Group A, if sufficient number of SC/ST candidates for promotion against reserved vacancies are not available, such vacancies may be de-reserved as per prescribed procedure and filled by candidates of other communities.
(ii) If sufficient number of SC/ST candidates fit for promotion against reserved vacancies are not available and such vacancies can also not be de-reserved for reasons like non-availability of candidates of other categories to fill up the posts, etc., the vacancies shall not be filled and will remain unfilled until the next recruitment year. These vacancies shall not be treated as backlog vacancies.
(iii) In the subsequent recruitment year when recruitment is made for the vacancies of that year (called the current vacancies), the backlog vacancies of SCs and STs will also be filled up, keeping the current vacancies and the backlog vacancies of SCs and STs as two distinct groups. While in respect of the current vacancies the instructions that no more than 50% of the vacancies can be reserved will apply, all the backlog vacancies reserved for SCs and STs will be filled up by candidates belonging to the concerned category without any restriction whatsoever as they belong to distinct group of backlog vacancies.
(iv) If backlog vacancies reserved for SCs/STs cannot be filled up by reservation and can also not be de-reserved in the subsequent recruitment year as well, such backlog vacancies will be carried forward as backlog vacancies for subsequent recruitment year(s) as long as these are not filled by candidates of the category for which these are reserved or by candidates of other communities after de-reservation.
2. As the Respondents did not comply with the aforesaid order of this Tribunal dated 30.03.2009, the Applicant filed C.P. No. 59/2009 in the said OA. However, during its pendency, the Respondents have issued the impugned order in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 30.03.2009. In the said order, they have stated that the Applicant ranked 205th in the result of written examination and he was included in the final merit list. However, he was not promoted for want of vacancies.
3. As regards the instructions contained in DOP&T OM dated 06.11.2003, they have stated that no de-reservation was done by them but they have carried forward the vacancies to the next year to be treated as backlog vacancies. Further, they have stated that even if they had made the de-reservation, the unfilled ST vacancies could have been filled up only by the general category candidates as per the prescribed procedure.
4. Applicant has challenged the aforesaid decision of the Respondents on the ground that the Respondents were insensitive to the cause of the SC employees. He has also stated that even though he qualified for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the selection held in 2006-07 and 2007-08 yet he was not promoted as there was no vacancy left under the SC category. He has stated further that though there were 13 vacancies in the ST category, the Respondents carried forward them as backlog vacancies instead of de-reserving them in violation of the instructions contained in aforesaid DOP&Ts OM dated 06.11.2003. He has, therefore, filed this Original Application seeking a direction to the Respondents to comply with the aforesaid instructions and to de-reserve the ST vacancies and consider him for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer for which he had qualified in the selections held in the year 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. The Respondents have filed their reply reiterating their position as contained in their letter dated 22.02.2011. They have stated that in terms of the aforesaid OM of the DOP&T dated 06.11.2003, it is not mandatory that the unfilled SC/ST vacancies should be de-reserved. Further, they have stated that, as per the existing rules, those vacancies have already been carried forward to be filled up in future selections from the eligible candidates belonging to the SC/ST categories.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Mrs. Meenu Mainee and the learned counsel for the Respondents Shri S.M. Arif. Admittedly, the Applicant could not get his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer for which selection has been made in the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 due to his low position in the merit list. His contention is that in order to make available more vacancies under the SC category, the unfilled ST vacancies should be de-reserved in terms of DOP&T OM dated 06.11.2003 but it cannot be accepted as it is not mandatory for the Respondents to do so. A reading of the aforesaid OM makes it clear that the said decision was taken by the Government only to see that the vacancies meant for SC/ST candidates would not remain unfilled for long period. However, in this case, the Respondents have carried forward those vacancies to be filled up in future selections. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this case and it is dismissed accordingly.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G. GEORGE PARACKEN) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rakesh