Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Raj Kumar Awasthi vs Union Of India on 17 October, 2024
CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/000277 of 2008 Raj Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.O.I. &Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No. 00332/00277/2008
Dated this 17th day of October, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Raj Kumar Awasthi, Aged about 56 years, son of Late Sri Devi Charan,
Resident of 3/254, Vinay Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Smt. Ashuja Gupta holding brief for Shri A. K.
Jauhari
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs
(Census Operation), New Delhi.
2. Registrar General of India, Census Operations, 2/A, Man Singh
Road, New Delhi.
3. Director, Census Operation, U.P. Govt. of India, Lekhraj Market-III,
Indira Nagar, Lucknow.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
O R D E R (O R A L)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case of promotion, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:
(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to promote the applicant on Class-C post w.e.f. 12.07.2001 when Sri Mohammad Muied Siddiqui was promoted with all the consequential benefits.
(ii) To pass such other orders which are deemed just, fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iii) To allow the original application with costs.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed to the post of peon in Census Department, Lucknow on 01.03.1972. He Page 1 of 8 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/000277 of 2008 Raj Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. appeared in the departmental examination against 10% quota for promotion to the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDC, hereafter) in terms of the recruitment rules which was held on 11.06.1990 and 26.06.1990. In the examination, in which 15 group 'D' employees appeared, some employees, including the applicant, had passed Prathama/Madhyama from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayagraj. The educational qualification of Madhyama acquired by the applicant was not treated as equivalent to High School by the respondents and due to this the result was withheld. The applicant, along with another, approached this Tribunal in OA No. 431 of 1990 whereupon this Tribunal, directed the respondents to treat the examination of Madhyama equivalent to Matriculation and declare the result of the applicant. The respondents declared the result, placing the applicant at serial number 14 of the select list. An employee, Shri Ramesh Prasad, Loader, was promoted to the post of LDC and the applicant was not. Subsequently, while certain persons were promoted, the applicant was not promoted to Class C post despite several representations. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA. During the pendency of this OA, the applicant retired from service on 31.07.2012.
3. It is the contention of the applicant that Mohd. Muied Siddiqui, who was placed at S. No. 15, was promoted on 12.07.2001 ignoring the claim of the applicant who was placed at S. No. 14 in the select list. It is also contended that on 29.06.2005, persons junior to the applicant, namely, Ms Kalpana Kukreti, Shri Dilip Kumar and Shri K K Awasthi were promoted even though they had not completed 8 years' regular service as required under the service rules.
4.1 The respondents state that a written test for filling one post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) by promotion from 10% quota reserved for Group 'D' having requisite educational qualification and regular service Page 2 of 8 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/000277 of 2008 Raj Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. of 5 years as per recruitment rules was held on 11.06.1990 and 26.06.1990. In the test, 15 Group D employees appeared along with the applicant. The educational qualification of applicant was Madhyama which was not treated equivalent to High School and the result was withheld. In compliance to the order dated 12.03.1993 of this Tribunal in OA No. 431 of 1990 (R K Awasthi & Ors vs Union of India) directing the respondents to treat the examination of the Madhyama equivalent of matriculation or High School and declare the result, the result was declared on 26.10.1993 in which the name of applicant was at S. No.
14. There was only one post of LDC available which was filled by appointment of Shri Ramesh Prasad whosename was at 1st position in the result.
4.2 In the revised recruitment rules of LDC/Typist notified on 15.09.2000, the quota earmarked for promotion to Group C posts to be filled by departmental examination from Group 'D' employees required that the departmental candidates should possess required educational qualification and other requirements prescribed for direct recruitment candidates, not exceed 45 years of age, and must have completed 8 years of regular service in pay scale of Rs. 2,550 - 3,200 or 6 years in pay scale of Rs. 2,610 - 3,540. On the cutoff date of promotion, i.e., 24.07.2001, Mohammed Muied Siddiqui was below the prescribed age limit of 45 years and he was promoted with effect from 24.07.2001. On the other hand, the applicant, having date of birth as 27.07.1952, was 49 year old as on the cut off date and, therefore, he could not be promoted. The respondents state that after the introduction of recruitment rules in the year 2000, the seniority of the examination result dated 26.10.1993 is not applicable.
4.3 The respondents state further that on sympathetic consideration, the applicant was appointed to Group 'C' post as Page 3 of 8 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/000277 of 2008 Raj Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. Assistant Compiler on deputation during 19.06.2002 to 18.06.2005 and later reverted to Group D post on 19.06.2005. An enquiry was set up pertaining to the seniority of the applicant and the enquiry report dated 31.08.2007 found that there had been no injustice or partiality in selection procedure in regard to the applicant's case. 4.4 The respondents have stated that Ms Kalpana Kukreti, Shri Dilip Kumar and Shri K K Awasthi were regularized on the post of Assistant Compiler according to recruitment rules after possessing the requisite requirement.
4.5 The recruitment rules were further revised in 2005 providing for 10% quota to be filled up on the basis of departmental test subject to the age limit of 45 years. Since the applicant had already attained 45 years of age, he was not eligible for promotion from 10% quota. The revised recruitment rules also provided for 5% quota to be filled on promotion based on seniority. The applicant was also not eligible for promotion under 5% quota, being junior as per common seniority list of Group D employees maintained by Registrar General of India.
5. We have heard both the parties.
6.1 The Office of the Registrar General and ex-officio Census Commissioner for India and the offices of the Directors of Census Operations in State and Union Territories (Lower Division Clerk/Typist) Recruitment Rules, 1984 notified on 15.09.1984 prescribe the following eligibility requirement in column 12:
"12. In case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/transfer, grades from which promotion, deputation, transfer to be made. Promotion: 10% of the vacancies in each of the offices shall be reserved for being filled up by Group 'D' employees borne on the regular establishment of the respective office who fulfil the conditions prescribed in Column 8 on the basis of a Departmental Committee, subject to the following conditions:-Page 4 of 8
CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/000277 of 2008 Raj Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.O.I. &Ors.
(a) the maximum age limit for appearing in the Departmental Examination shall be 45 years (50 years for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates); and
(b) at least 5 years' service in a group 'D' post would be essential.
The maximum number of recruits by this method would be limited to 10% of the vacancies occurring in a year in the respective offices, and unfilled vacancies would not be carried over."
(emphasis supplied) 6.2 In the departmental examination held in June 1990, the result of which was finally declared on 26.10.1993 following the direction of this Tribunal dated 12.03.1993 in OA No. 431 of 1990, the applicant stood at 14th position. There was only one post of LDC available for promotion under the 10% quota, and the person at 1st position was promoted against that post. It is pertinent to note that the age limit for candidates to be promoted through the departmental examination under the 10% quota was 45 years.
6.3 The recruitment rules were revised in the year 2000. These rules [Office of the Registrar General and ex-officio Census Commissioner for India and the offices of the Directors of Census Operations in State and Union Territories (Lower Division Clerk/Typist) Recruitment Rules, 2000 notified on 15.09.2000] prescribed the following eligibility requirement in column 12:
"12. In case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/absorption, grades from which promotion/deputation/absorption to be made. Promotion: 15% of the vacancies in each of the offices shall be reserved for being filled up by Group 'D' employees borne on the regular establishment of the respective office who fulfil the conditions prescribed in Column 8 on the basis of a Departmental test, subject to the following conditions:-
(c) the maximum age limit for appearing in the Departmental test shall be 45 years (50 years for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates); and
(d) atleast 6 years regular service in posts carrying pay scale of Rs.
2610 - 3540 or with at least 8 years regular service in posts carrying pay scale of Rs. 2550 - 3200 post would be essential. The maximum number of recruits by this method would be limited to 15% of the vacancies occurring in a year in the respective offices, and unfilled vacancies would not be carried over."
Page 5 of 8 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/000277 of 2008 Raj Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.O.I. &Ors.
(emphasis supplied) 6.4 Under the revised recruitment rules of 2000 quoted above, the maximum age limit for promotion through the departmental test was retained as 45 years and the promotion quota through departmental test was increased to 15%. The applicant's date of birth is 27.07.1952. When Mohd. Muied Siddiqui at S. No. 15 was promoted on 24.07.2001 he was under 45 years of age (date of birth 01.10.1956), but the applicant was over 45 years of age.
6.5 The recruitment rules were revised yet again in 2005. In these rules [Office of the Registrar General and ex-officio Census Commissioner for India and the offices of the Directors of Census Operations in State and Union Territories (Lower Division Clerk/Typist) Recruitment Rules, 2005, notified on 16.06.2005], the following provisions for promotion were made in column 12:
"12. In case of recruitment by promotion or deputation or absorption grades from which promotion/deputation/absorption to be made. Promotion:
(i) Ten per cent of the posts in each of the Offices shall be filled up on the basis of a departmental test from amongst the Group 'D' employees borne on the regular establishment of the respective Office who fulfil the educational and other qualifications prescribed for direct recruits under column 8, subject to the following conditions:-
(a) the maximum age limit shall be 45 years (50 years for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates); and
(b) having six years' regular service in post having pay scale of Rs.
2610 - 3540 or eight years' regular service in post in the pay scale of Rs. 2550 - 3200.
(ii) Five per cent of the posts in each of the offices shall be filled up by seniority amongst the Group 'D' employees borne on the regular establishment of the respective office who fulfill the educational and other qualifications prescribed for direct recruits under column 8 and having six years' regular service in post in the pay scale of Rs. 2610 - 3540 or eight years' regular service in post in the pay scale of Rs. 2550 - 3200."
(emphasis supplied) 6.6 It is noticed that for the first time, a quota of 5% was provided for promotion from amongst group 'D' employees having necessary Page 6 of 8 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/000277 of 2008 Raj Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. qualifications, while 10% quota was earmarked for promotion through the departmental test with age limit of 45 years. During arguments, vide affidavit dated 02.09.2024, learned counsel for the applicant raised the issue that in terms of recruitment rules of 2005, 5% posts are reserved for promotion as per seniority, but here also the applicant's claim was not considered and Shri K K Awasthi (date of birth 01.07.1960) was promoted on 12.07.2005 even though he was more than 45 years of age.
6.7 The respondents, vide affidavit dated 14.10.2024, have explained that Shri K K Awasthi had completed 8 years of service in the pay scale of Rs. 2550 - 3200 and had passed the proficiency test in typing held on 15.12.2004 and, therefore, was recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion against 10% quota as he had not attained 45 years of age as on the date of test. 6.8 In conclusion, we find that the applicant could not be promoted against promotion quota to be filled through departmental examination under 1984 rules as he did not possess the merit, being at serial number 14, for promotion to the lone post of LDC available. Subsequently, for promotion through departmental test under 2000 rules and 2005 rules, he was ineligible having crossed the age limit of 45 years. Finally, the applicant was not senior enough for promotion under 5% promotion quota based on seniority introduced in 2005 rules, as per the common seniority list maintained by the Registrar General of India. This being the factual position, we cannot fault the respondents for having acted in accordance with the recruitment rules. Consequently, in our opinion, the applicant cannot be granted the relief prayed for.
7.1 In view of the foregoing, the OA is dismissed.
Page 7 of 8 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/000277 of 2008 Raj Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. 7.2 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
7.3 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Page 8 of 8