Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
N H A I Engineer Association vs M/O Road And Transport on 3 October, 2017
< ed oe ASRNAS Eee: aa OL AS seane os c. s we Spandenis gs NM Re Awan N iL.P. T Shr ry By Adv ets SA ona WE ORDER
By Hon' n'ble Mr. Gokul Chandra Pati, Momber --A The Pres esent ¢ an .
2.4. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tri Strative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
.
mas and set aside the impugned advertisemant dated 06.08.2618 xo! xeire No. A-f to Compilation No. }, as well as the entire election process conducted by the respondents in pursuance of the same for filling up Ure vacaneies on the post of Manager (Tochnical) under the NHAL, exclusively by the methed of Direct Reeruitinent ii, issue a time bound direction to the respondents [0 fiif up the posts advertisod as above, first by way of nidatles of Manager (Technical), ailable and eligible ca promotion from amongst the av Manager (Tee working on the past of Deputy Ainical), and ordy nt, or any other mode, stdctly in thorvatter, by Direct Recruitme accordance with the Recruitment Regulations in place.
issue such ether orders or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the frets and circumstances of the case, 5 of this Original Application in fa iti, i. award the cost vour Of the applicant, throughout, "
Facts of this O.A. in brief are that the applicants are aggrieved by
2. advertisement dated 06.08.2015 (Annexure &-1) issued by the impugned nviting applications National Highways Authority of India (in short NHAJ i for filling up of 100 posts of Manager (Technical) by direct recruitment. of the applicants are mainly on account of the following The grievances reasons:-
i The is against the NHA! impugned advertisement (Recruitment, seniority and promotion) Regulations, 1995 as amended from time to time (in short Regulations) since NHAI ig filing up vacancy of Manager (Technical) by direct recruitment without considering the case of the applicant for promotion to Manager {Technical}.
and 3 i, Gove a ernment of India, Ministry of Road Transport é Highways (i é ghways (in short MORTH) vide letter dated 29. 10.2018 . A (Annexure-A-17) has banned rectuitment in NHAI pending finalization of Recruitment Rules in conformity with DOPT guidelines and the draft Rules are under finalization by NHAI.
(Technical) in NHAI ed for promotion to ihe post of ons taking into ii, The applicants who are Deputy Manager are eligible to be consider Manager (Technical) as per the Regulati account the crucial date for eligibility on 04.04.2016 as per 28,05.2014 (Annexure A-10). Instead of o Post of Manager head with direct recruitment as ulation 13 DOPT letter dated dering their claims for promotion t d advertisement in violation of Reg d by the applicants.
016, consi (Technical), NHAI is going a per the impugne (4) in spite of rapresentations submitte nterim relief vide order dated 22.02.2 of which reads as below: -
rties, the Court Is of the view that Recruitment in the fight of 2015 cannot be kept in to protect the interest of
3. This Court had granted i the operative portion After hearing counsel for the pa the selection procedure by way of Direct the impugned advertisement dated 06.08. however, as an interim measure directed that the respondents may o on with the selection processes but they will not finalize the till the next date." + vacation of interim order filed by "96.
abeyance, the applicant No game or issue any appointment letter red and vide order dated 04.08.2016, the interim The Misc. Application fo 016 was vacated by this Court, permitting NHAI to ry action to finalize the appointments pursuant to the 4, respondents was conside order dated 92,02.2 take necessa impugned advertisement. é on ne tespondenis in thelr Counter Affidavit (9 shod GAP Rave ed that the applicant No. 1 ie. NHAI Engines' Aggociation gistered under Soclety Registration Act, 1880 is not re ognized By NHAI ang hence § has no locus standi fo intervene in this a atter. Appican's No. 2,3 & 4 were appiicants in O.A. No. 2892/14 pefore CAT. (Pancieal for Barck where sim :
Bench) where similar reliefs for ihe recruitment year 2014 Were prayed J (Pancipal Bench) vide order dated 16.10.2015 has dismissed the wy 3 G. © x wed % ct was not disclosed int anid OA on ment fhaags 5 : $ said O.A. on merit (Aniexure CA-2}. THIS tact present OA. The apglicants No. 2.9 g, 4 are prima facie not eligible for 5 the next higher pos. hence the OA is frivolous and is devoid of merit and ihe same is fable to be dismissed.
&. At the time of he ating, the fearned counsel for the applicants nesides reiterating the submissions made in ihe O. A. argued that as per ines ihe Recruiiment Rules in force at the time of occurrence of vacancies will be applicable unless the amended rules have retrospective effect Accordingly the amendment notified in 2016 to NHAI Recruitment, (Seniority and Promotion) Regulations will not have retrospective effect and hence the applicants will be eligible for promotion ason oi 04.2016 as claimed in the OA. 7, Leamed counsel for the respondents reiterated the submissions made in the Counter Affidavit. We hen --
8. 'Ne have considered the submissions of learned counsels and perused the pleadings available on record. Following issues need fo be decided in this case!- \ Vv reeds ty
7) £ a i oA rm 3 tka % 3 4g 4 f mn! 5 sud a a0 $o.
9he gs :
:
we ISS 'z, xe SSRIS wrew of the urgent feaded that in ncfes af Manager {Tech} so as to have myamsy SY wares ' to?
nsive spesoy immfementation of Madonal Siete manoower fo 2 3 cotton work of NHAT tbe recrusiment should be SS Sey Eioinway Road coosguctas rece pomuited te canciude so thaf Grey gef the desired work force of Manager 'Teoh? without oelay.
23. We Aave examined thair interim order vacation appiication & ive Soit af foe decision of Hon'ble Apax Court in the case of 8.
Frahha Dew & Ors. Vs. Govt. of india & Ors ~ AIR 1988 ¢SC} 902, fhe Aper Court Aas clarified that the rufe making authority is competent fo make rufes iaying down conditions for promotion to @ higher post # has gone to observe "in any event, the appropriate Rute making Authority is the best judge in this regard. Fhe iniSunal cannot sit ia judgment over the apinian of the Rule making Authodty. No Court or Tribunal can substitute its own view in s mater such as this. Such a Rule framed by a competent Authority cannot be struck down unless it is shown to Be violative of any eital foght guaranteed fo a citizen under the Constitution'. Fundam Again, tis issue has already also been settied by the Apex Court in Govinda Rao ~ AIR 1968 SC} the case of University of Mysore Vs. fe Apex Court has clearly observed that feave the decision of
437. in tis case, Hon'hi aormaily it is wise and safe for the courts to Such matters to the expert who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. Given this position by wveee TSN opts thes pramotion pro a cw te '3 ing ment be ft & fECrul "<3 a re n of Cantal & The decisio
11. = esd S 3S ow we 2 a >~ hot 2 2 $s ynad a IMpPy d decision, the i r ihe sa vy 7 pe Say ah 8 gh it yeas thou i a (sa ee, ae x ane.
pw 59 Dad ~~ me & cond ars os pa re ~ he andl cone.
ed 24 8 ~ by quashed th tts Ye ag g ihe SUNY Al before is i y Nb et b ered fit it $ con direct recruiiment which was enpugned in Q.A.N for pr aligitie policanis are not _the a Case wy.
& B as Dead pny < > which the impugned adveriseme "S 3 $ LONE Khon Sag . -
< TRAST Weetioetan Shep %. = _s TRESS Mee EYSes PUES Felon oy ny Be en cot . . s TOWING observations made in State of Andhra Pradesh and 4Anr Vs. Sadanandan and Ors Etc. AIR £1989! SC 2060--
"The oade oF recrudtepant and fag xcoavesnory frees wc? recruitment to x service showid be ode are al matters sets prclusively efthin dre domain of the executive, His Ot Sav a Boies fo sh in judgment over the wisdoot af tio exec choosing the mode of recruitment ar Ure cotegades frost winic recrustmoant should bo mado as they are matters af poticy SFERTS, Yaling exclusively within the purviow of Us execndivr. .
Hence, when and how the vacancies of posts are ta fer Nest up in thes oase has to be lefito NHAL We have taken note of the fact fhat NHAI 3 taking necessary action to secure the promotion prospects af te employees as observed in para 27 of omer dated 04.05. 2018 extracted i para O of this order. Hence no direction to NHALI to fill up the smcariios fy wey of promotion can be given by this Tribunal, partinuiariy when so violations of the Rujes and Regulations In fillmg up af Ure sass:
NHAI has been established.
$3. We also take note of the submission of the mespeoodenis Unat the applicants No, 2, 3 & 4 had agitated a sind miter redating to a differant vacancy year in CLA. No, 2802/14 in CLAT. Principal Beach, New Dah and as per order of C_AT. (Principal Bench) cated 18.10. 20°15 in dat case (Annexure No. 2 of CA) the O.A. was dismissed. in that OLA. the ie 4 ps ra i "Waedanhes 44 .
SQapns 13 ani tg at the ani PSE eae? DRE Sh wevageta) BXUAGAT belay.
"HE in PUL dash! ans athens. ate. 63 x SURE GS ahers, aie, FR Abmedadad and others, at, (8 Suprenre Court has Aada tus, "Questions pafating fo 0 monrenclature oof pasts, cares, crestionsbalition, preseription of qual conditions of service ineivding ayaadaes tileria to be fulfilled for such promtovons pe of Policy and within the exclusive discredit atk of the State, subject, of course, 10 fhe fe restrictions envisaged in the Constitution af inet not for the Statutory Tribunals, at aay rata, fo direct fhe Government to have a particular method of receuimend Be aligibility eriteria ar avenues of promodion ar smpose HS , by substituting its views for feat OF Une Stata Similady, Ass well open and within the competenry af the State fe cha the rules relating to a service and aiter or amend and se by addition'substructon the qualifications, ofigiility cae and other conditions of service inclaging avenues of promotion, fram tine to time, as the paminisiaives exigencies may noed oF necessitate, Likewise, [ha State oy appropriate sules is entitied io amalgamate dogartans 2° bifureate departments info more and constitute different categories of posts ar cadres by undertsking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as wef 3s ant reconstitute and = rastructure fhe patton cadres/categaries of service, a5 may be required front Ham to time by abolishing existing cadrenjosis and creaking new cadresiposts. Thera is no night in any employoe of the State to cigim that rules governing conditions of hig aprnvice should be forever tho same as the one when Ag gated service for all purposes and except for ensuring oF safeguarding rights or benelits already varned, acquired oF accrued at a particular point of tiate, a Government SEvan has no right to challenge the authority of fhe State is amend, after and bring into force now rules relating {8 ever an existing service."
CEs FIRS calEge a8 PRONSH 14, In the ght of our above discussions, we bald that the GA, Beas dovold of merit, is fable to be dismissed, Accordingly, he Dass diemissed. Ne casts."
44. In this OLA. the applicants have impugned the advertisement dated 06.08.2015 to fill up 100 posts of Manager (Technical) by direct recruitment which was subsequently reduced te 40 by NHAL as observed in para 27 of the order dated 04.08.2010. As absarvad above, this impugned advertisement dated QG,08.2018 dogs not violate the NHAI 9 Regulations - .
a . Hence, in the light of the decision of CAT. Principal Bench in O.A. No. 2892/14, this O.A. lacks merit. he applicant on the issue ban ~ ;
15. The contention of the learned counsel fort dment to the recruitment rules {S of retrospective application of the amen se, since reliefs claime OA do not not a relevant issue in this ca d in this eligibility of the applic ants for promoven as per the include the date of Regulations.
. ; ; f
46. in view of above discussions. the present O.A. being devoid © merit is dismissed. No costs. renal ; .
i Dr. Murtaza Ali) (Gokul qnandra Pati) ( Naber () Member (A) spel