Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mukesh Kumar vs M/O Urban Development on 11 February, 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No.4103 of 2014
This the 11th day of February 2019
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member (J)
1. Mukesh Kumar (Category-OBC), Aged about 28 years
S/o : Sh. Upendra Thakur,
R/o : B-109, Type-II,
Minto Road Complex,
New Delhi-110002
2. Sumit Kumar (Category-OBC),Aged about 27 years
S/o: Sh. Durga Das Chauhan,
R/o: S-679A, School Block,
Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.
3. Nitin Nigam (Category-OBC), Aged about 29 years
S/o : Sh. Naresh Kumar Nigam,
R/o:23/2C, DIZ Area, Sector-II,
Gol Market, New Delhi-110001.
4. Deepak Bhardwaj (Category-GEN), Aged about 26 years
S/o: Sh. Raj Kumar Bhardwaj,
R/o: F-2217, Netaji Nagar,
New Delhi-110002.
....Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri Amit Kumar)
VERSUS
Union of India & others, Through :
1. The Secretary,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Urban Development,
B Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Printing,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Urban Development,
B Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The National Council for Vocational Training,
Through : the Secretary,
2
Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India,
Shatri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Chairman, Central Apprenticeship Council,
Through: the Secretary, Ministry of Labour,
Govt. of India
Shatri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
5. The Principal Secretary,
All India Council for Technical Education,
7th Floor, Chandralik Building,
Janpath, New Delhi-110001.
.....Respondents
(By Advocate : Dr. Ch. Shamshudin Khan for R-1 to R-4 and
Shri S.K. Tripathi for Mr. Gyanendra Singh for R-5)
O R D E R (Oral)
Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A):
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By filing the instant OA, the applicants are seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Direct the respondents for granting equity by framing and incorporating the provision of alternative eligibility in the Recruitment Rules for the post of DTP Operator for those holding qualification such as "Certificate in Apprenticeship under Apprenticeship Act, 1961, in the Trade of DTP Operator" in conformity with the other Trades, following the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
(b) Quash and Set aside the impugned Advertisement No.1/2013
(c) Pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Directorate of Printing is presently considering 3 amendment in the Desktop Publishing Operators Recruitment Rules as follows:-
(i) Diploma in Printing technology or Bachelor Degree; and
(ii) Apprenticeship Certificate in Desktop Publishing Operator Trade with three years experience in a large Printing establishment;
(iii) Typing experience in Hindi & English language.
Counsel for the respondents further submitted that amended Recruitment Rules are to be approved by DOP&T & UPSC and also vetted by the Department of Legal Affairs and the amendments as approved by DOP&T and UPSC will be published in Gazette Notification and as it may take some time to get the approval of the concerned department and as and when the same is approved, the Gazette Notification will be issued. Counsel also submitted that the aforesaid advertisement, quashing of which is sought in this OA, has already been scrapped in view of the aforesaid proposed amendment in the Recruitment Rules. Lastly counsel for the respondents submitted that since grievance raised in this OA has already been redressed by the respondents, the present OA has become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed by this Tribunal.
4
4. Counsel for the applicants has not disputed the aforesaid averments of the respondents.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and contentions of the respondents, this Court is also of the considered view that the present OA has now become infructuous as the respondents have themselves scrapped the whole process which was initiated pursuance to the aforesaid Advertisement, which was sought to be quashed by this Tribunal and they have also taken steps to amend the RRs for the post in question, as mentioned above. Therefore, the present OA is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, if the applicants are still aggrieved, they are at liberty to make a representation to the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.N. Terdal) (Nita Chowdhury)
Member (J) Member (A)
/ravi/