Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ravi Shankar vs Union Of India on 18 April, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 1316/2011 New Delhi, this the 18th day of April, 2011 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE MR. L.K.JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) Ravi Shankar, UDC S/o Shri Prem Shanker Sharma, R/o 9/1974, Gali No.4, Kailash Nagar, Delhi-110031 Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Padma Kumar S.) Versus 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-11. 2. Director, Intelligence Buerau, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-1 3. The Secretary, DoP&T, North Block, New Delhi-1 Respondents ORDER
Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Gripped by the fear of inability to compete and thus left to stagnate in service has led the Applicant to challenge the Memorandum dated 25.01.2011 inviting applications for promotion of the eligible Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) under the Fast Track Promotion Scheme (FTPS). It is further stated that the Respondent, Director, Intelligence Bureau has projected 300 vacancies to be filled up in the direct recruitment quota for promotion in the year 2010, which would severely curtail prospects of promotion for the Applicant. His third grievance is that the Respondents diverted 80 vacancies of unfilled direct recruit Section Officer for promotion of feeder post of Assistants. It is stated that when sufficient number of Assistants with five years of service were not available, the Respondents have re-diverted 20 promotion vacancies to direct recruitment quota without consulting the Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T) and the Ministry of Law. The following relief has been sought:
(a) Declare the notification dated 6.2.2008 (ANNEXURE A-2) as unconstitutional, being discriminatory and unreasonable. Also quash and set aside impugned orders dated 25.1.2011 (ANNEXURE A-1) and 18.2.2011 (ANNEXURE A-3).
(b) Direct the respondents not to fill up the vacancies beyond 1% of the vacancies of the cadre strength by direct recruitment as it is illegal.
) Fill the 50 vacancies (30 of which are against the 60 posts of Assistants promoted to SO and 20 against the unfilled vacancies of SO) by promotion.
(d) Any other relief which this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to pass under the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The FTPS was introduced by amending the Intelligence Bureau Secretariat Service Rules, 2003 by the Intelligence Bureau Secretariat Service (Amendment) Rules, 2008, which inserted the following note in column 12 in schedule relating to the Assistant:
Note.- Ten percent of the promotion quota shall be filled up under Fast Track Promotion Scheme through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination from amongst the Upper Division Clerks in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- with three years regular service in the Grade and possessing Graduation Degree from a recognized University or equivalent as per the rules of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination notified by the Government from time to time. The said scheme was introduced by the letter dated 06.02.2008 of the first Respondent, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), addressed to the second Respondent. The letter, inter alia, reads thus:
2. In light of the Govt. decision as also with a view to provide quicker promotional avenues to deserving and efficient employees in the non-gazetted posts in Executive, Wireless Telegraphy, Technical, Motor Transport, Clerical, Stenographic and Secretariat cadres, 10% of promotion quota posts have been earmarked under the Fast Track Promotion (FTP) scheme through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) to be conducted by the department. The scheme would cover non-gazetted ranks in the Executive, Technical, Ministerial, Stenographic and Motor Transport Cadres. The provisions with regard to reservation would be adhered to as per government norms/guidelines issued from time to time. A specific provision as to the eligibility criteria pertaining to residency requirement and educational qualifications has been incorporated in the respective Recruitment Rules.
3. The scheme of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination shall consist of following three parts:
Part-I Written Examination consisting of two papers General Awareness and - 20 marks General English (objective type) Part-II Paper on specialized field - 20 marks Part-III Evaluation of Service Records - 40 marks (This shall include 5 years of ACR gradings, Awards like PPM/IPM and operational performance) Interview - 20 marks The learned counsel for the Applicant would contend that he would have to compete with younger persons for FTPS and may not succeed. It was pointed out that the Applicant had made a representation for promotion, in reply to which he was advised that he should participate in the examination for FTPS. The learned counsel would contend that although the Applicant had educational qualification for competing in the examination for FTPS, yet his responses would have rusted after long years of service in the Government and it may not be possible for him to compete with fresh blood. He would contend that in view of this the notification dated 06.02.2008, introducing the FTPS, was in violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. The policy has created a class within a class. The qualifications prescribed for UDC is matriculation and by providing graduation as qualification for FTPS, many employees had been put to great disadvantage.
3. The arguments of the Applicant are most unconvincing and are specious in the extreme. The FTPS has been introduced by an amendment of the Recruitment Rules. Limited Departmental Competitive Examination is the prescribed method for promotion of deserving employees to higher grade without having to wait for completing the eligibility period. The Government has a right to introduce a scheme for promotion based on merit. The Applicant has the qualifications for competing in the FTPS. He has not been excluded. He has a right for consideration, which has been accorded to him. However, he feels insecure that he would not be able to compete in the examination. This does not make the examination of the scheme thereof to be unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4. Insofar as other grievances of the Applicant are concerned, there is no foundation for those apprehensions that 300 posts of Assistants would be filled up by direct recruitment or some of the diverted vacancies for promotion would be re-diverted for direct recruitment. No document to this effect has been placed on record to show that the Respondents are intending to take such action as has been apprehended by the Applicant. In any case, 50% of the posts of Assistants have to be filled up by promotion and the rest 50% by direct recruitment. The Applicant has not shown that there has been any amendment in the Recruitment Rules or one-time relaxation to fill more than 50% posts by direct recruitment. Since there is no basis for the pleadings made regarding the direct recruitment of 300 Assistants and re-diversion of 20 vacancies from promotion quota to direct recruitment quota and since the learned counsel for the Applicant has not been able to satisfy us in this regard, we do not see any reason why these unfounded pleadings should be considered.
5. We find the OA to be completely devoid of merit, which is accordingly dismissed at the threshold.
(L.K.Joshi ) ( V.K.Bali ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /dkm/