Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr A V Koteswara Rao vs Gnctd on 9 February, 2022
1
OA No.311/2022
Item No. 7
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 311/2022
M.A. No. 317/2022
This the 9th Day of February, 2022
(Through Video Conferencing)
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
1. Dr. A.V. Koteswara Rao, Aged 42 years
S/o Shri A. Neelakanteswara Rao
R/o F-1502, Amrapali Sapphire
Sector-45, Noida
Distt : Gautam Buddh Nagar (UP).
2. Sh. Suresh Kumar Bukka, Aged 42 years
S/o Shri Thrinadha Rao Bukka
R/o Flat No.221, Block-E3
Paradise Apartment
Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi.
Presently working as :
Assistant Electrical Inspector
Labour Department
Government of NCT of Delhi.
... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. D.S. Choudhary)
Versus
1. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
2. The Principal Secretary-cum-Labour Commissioner
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
5, Shamnath Marg
Delhi-110054.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)
2
OA No.311/2022
Item No. 7
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman:
M.A. No. 317/2022 This MA has been filed by the applicants seeking permission of this Tribunal for joining in a single application.
For the reasons stated in the MA, the same is allowed and the applicants are permitted to join in a single application. OA No. 311/2022
2. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants seeking the following relief(s):
"8.1 The respondents be directed to decide and dispose of the applicants' representations dated 08/09.11.2021 & 15.12.2021, [Annexure - A/1 (Colly)] with a reasoned and speaking order within a specified time as may be allowed by this tribunal; and, the same may be communicated to the applicants.
8.2 Costs of the proceedings may be allowed; and 8.3 Any other or further order(s) as deemed fit and proper to secure the ends of justice may also be passed."
3. The applicants have been working as Assistant Electrical Inspector (hereinafter referred to as 'AEI') with the Respondent No.2. The next higher promotional post from AEI is Deputy Electrical Inspector (hereinafter referred to as 'DEI'). The post of DEI is filled up 100% by way of promotion. It is stated that the applicants, who belong to Unreserved (UR) category, are 3 OA No.311/2022 Item No. 7 the senior most AEIs and they have been working as such for about 12 years and, therefore, they are entitled to be promoted against the next available posts of DEI.
4. It is further stated by the applicants that the Department has prepared a 13 point reservation roster w.e.f. 31.03.2008 and as per the said roster, all the four initial appointments are earmarked for the candidates of UR category. It is also mentioned in para 12 of explanatory note annexed to the DoPT's OM dated 02.07.1997 that initial recruitment against these posts shall be by the category for which the post is earmarked. Besides, the replacement points 1 and 2 are also earmarked for UR category. The third replacement point is earmarked for the candidate belonging to SC category in order to provide prescribed representation to SC candidates. It is further stated that in utter disregard to the aforesaid legal mandate, the Department had appointed Sh. Satpal Singh, a candidate belonging to SC category at 4th point, ignoring the legitimate claim of UR category. They have further stated that the respondents had prepared a roster dated 13.02.2013, wherein one Sh. K.L. Grover appointed as DEI on 19.05.1995 has been shown at S.No.1, though he retired on 31.08.2007. At that time, DEI was a single cadre post and no reservation 4 OA No.311/2022 Item No. 7 roster was applicable. The posts of DEI were increased from 1 to 4 w.e.f. 31.03.2008 and 13 point roster became applicable for promotion to the said posts.
5. Being aggrieved, the applicants have preferred representations dated 08/09.11.2021 and 15.12.2021, requesting the respondents not to consider any SC candidate against the next available two vacancies, as the prescribed percentage of reservation for SC category has already been achieved. However, no action has been taken thereon so far.
6. At the outset, Mr. D.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the respondents to decide their representations dated 08/09.11.2021 and 15.12.2021 in a time bound manner. However, Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed to the prayer made by the applicants and submitted that the relief cannot be granted to the applicants.
7. Accepting the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants, we dispose of the O.A. at the admission stage itself, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the respondents to decide the representations dated 5 OA No.311/2022 Item No. 7 08/09.11.2021 and 15.12.2021 submitted by the applicants, by passing a reasoned and speaking order thereon, as early as possible, and in any case not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd.Jamshed) (Manjula Das)
Member (A) Chairman
/jyoti/akshaya/