Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajpal Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.1640/2008 New Delhi this the 21st day of April, 2009. Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice-Chairman (A) Hon'ble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Rajpal Singh, S/o Shri Parma Singh, R/o VIII, Mitli, Distt. Baghpat, U.P. -Applicant (By Advocate Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) -Versus- Union of India & Ors., through: 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Company Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Secretary (Administration), Department of Company Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri A.K. Singh) O R D E R Hon'ble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
Applicant, by virtue of information sought under Right to Information Act, 2005, through this OA challenges his non-promotion as LDC in the prescribed 5% seniority quota.
2. Learned counsel would contend that being eligible applicant has a right to be considered under 5% seniority quota from amongst Group D staff as feeder category. Learned counsel states that as one Shri Uday Singh was also considered likewise, as such non-consideration for promotion of applicant to the post of LDC in CSCS cadre is an invidious discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel of respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that pursuant upon the Department of Personnel & Training notification dated 20.4.2005 the seniority quota has since been abolished and vacant posts of LDC in CSCS are to be filled 70% by direct recruitment and 30% by limited departmental competitive examination (LDCE). As such, there being no posts under the 5% quota the claim of applicant cannot be considered under LDCE.
4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. It is relevant to note that OA-1250/2004 filed by applicant was disposed of on 10.11.2005 where the stand taken by the respondents was found justifiable. However, it is made clear that in future if the vacancy arises applicants claim should be considered.
5. As there is no seniority quota, the applicant has to compete in the LDCE. Only 5% of the vacancies arisen during a select year were to be filled under the seniority quota and as the last appointment was made in the year 1993, thereafter no Group D employee has been promoted as LDC from this quota, though pending notification of the revised recruitment rules appointment can be made as per the existing recruitment rules and the instructions issued by Department of Personnel & Training.
6. Applicant, who is aggrieved by his non-promotion in 1995, cannot come after delay and laches to assert his claim merely because he has been replied under RTI in 2007. Moreover, rule position was very much available and in the knowledge of applicant. As he has not come in time he has lost his remedy.
7. The claim of applicant for promotion as LDC being bereft of merit, OA is dismissed. No costs.
(Shanker Raju) (L.K. Joshi) Member (J) Vice-Chairman (A) San.