Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Rakesh Chandra Bahukhandi vs The Delhi Jal Board on 18 August, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No. 397/2011 This the 18th day of August 2011 Honble Shri George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Dr. VeenaChhotray, Member (A) 1. Sh. Rakesh Chandra Bahukhandi S/o Sh. R.P.Bahukhandi R/o B-21/4, Arjun Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi-53. 2. Sh. Sharad Kumar S/o Sh. H.C.Sharma R/o C-123, Street No.5, Bhajan Pura, Delhi-53. 3. Sh. Devendra Singh S/o Late Sh. Prem Singh R/o H.No.14, Type-III Jalvihar, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024. 4. Ms. MadhuRaheja W/o Sh. M.M.Raheja R/o C-12, Navkunj Apartments, I.P.Extension, Patparganj, Delhi-92. 5. Sh. Mahendra Prasad S/o Late Sh. Jawahar Prasad R/o H.No.06/48, W.W. Wazirabad, Delhi-54. 6. Sh. RatanLal Tomar S/o Sh. Bansi Dhar R/o C-340/A, Gali No.14, Bhajanpura, Delhi. 7. Sh. Kishan Kumar Tyagi S/o Sh. Tilok Ram Tyagi R/o Gali No.8, Main Road, Village- Wazirabad, Delhi. Applicants (By Advocate: Sh. KunwarC.M.Khan) Versus 1. The Delhi Jal Board Through its Chief Executive Officer Varunalaya Building, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-5. 2. The Member Administration, Delhi Jal Board Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Varunalaya Building, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-5. 3. The Director (A&P) Delhi Jal Board Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Varunalaya Building, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-5. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. Nishakant Pandey) O R D E R
Honble Shri George Paracken:
This is probably the third round of litigation by the applicants. Earlier, they have filed TA-1051/2009 challenging the notification dated 22.9.1997 which has been annexed along with this OA also under Compilation-1 whereby the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for the Post of Assistant Chief Water Analyst in the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi have been issued. In the said TA, this Tribunal has considered the basic facts of the case, according to which for promotion to the post of Assistant Chief Water Analyst (ACWA, for short) the feeder cadres are Chemists and Bacteriologists. In 1985 throughResolution No.696 dated 15.10.1985, rules have been amended to the extent that quotas for Chemists and Bacteriologists have been fixed for promotion to the post of ACWA in the ratio 80:20. Those rules have been notified only on 22.9.1997 after the approval of UPSC. During the interregnum applicants and some others have been promoted as ACWA. Their grievance at that time was that since there was no approved ratio during the period from 1985 to 1997, the promotion should have been based on seniority. They have also submitted that there was no logic or reasonable nexus with the order sought to be achieved in amending the recruitment rules which have foreclosed the promotional avenues of the applicants qua bacteriologists. However, the contention on behalf of the respondents was that it was the policy decision to issue the Recruitment Regulations and therefore it cannot be challenged. They have also submitted that the promotional avenues of Assistant Bacteriologists to the post of Bacteriologist was considerably high as compared to that of Assistant Chemists to the post of Chemist as there were only 7 posts constituting the feeder cadre for 6 posts of Bacteriologist as against 60 Assistant Chemists constituting the feeder cadre for promotion to the 19 posts of Chemists. In other words, the promotional avenueof Assistant Chemists to the post of Chemists was 30% and promotional avenueof Assistant Bacteriologists for promotion as Bacteriologists was 90%. In order to remove the said invidious discrimination and to bring parity in promotional prospectus, the quota has been fixed in the ratio of 80:20 between Chemists and Bacteriologists for promotion to ACWA.
2. Considering the aforesaid submission of the respondents, this Tribunal dismissed the TA vide order dated 23.11.2009. Thereafter one of the applicants in the said TA-1051/2009 Sh. Sharad Kumar approached this Tribunal vide TA-727/2009. The said TA was disposed of vide order dated 18.5.2010 with the direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant therein for the post of Chief Water Analyst under 20% quota meant for the feeder category Bacteriologists.
3. In this OA the very same applicants in TA-1051/2009 (supra) have submitted that the aforesaid ratio of 80:20 is wrong and the same is to be enhanced for promotion to the post of ACWA. In this regard they have submitted Annexure A-4 representation dated 29.01.2010 to the respondents stating that the applicant No.1 & 2 were working as ACWA and remaining applicants were working as Bacteriologists. According to them, the unamended recruitment rules were issued on 4.1.1982 and the Rules issued on 29.5.1997 were amended by the said rules in which the quota for promotion to the post of ACWA has been fixed in the ratio 80:20 between Chemists and Bacteriologists. At present there were 20 posts of Chemists and 8 posts of Bacteriologists and there are 12 posts of ACWA available in the department but the promotional posts available for Bacteriologist are much less proportionate to their strength. Therefore, they are entitled to more than 30% of the vacancies, based on their strength. They have, therefore, requested the respondents to remove the disparity by proper implementation of the amended recruitment rules and to prepare the correct seniority list after granting promotion to the applicants from the due dates and in proper ratio based on their strength in the feeder cadre.
4. The respondents in the reply have submitted that the present case is hit by principle of res judicata as all the applicants have approached this Tribunal earlier vide TA-1051/2009 and this Tribunal had considered the reasons as to why the respondents have fixed the ratio of 80:20 between the Chemists and Bacteriologists for promotion to the post of ACWA. They have also submitted that one of them, namely, Sharad Kumar had again filed TA-727/2009 for consideration for promotion to the post of CWA and this Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider his claim under the aforesaid quota.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As observed earlier, the relief sought by the applicant in this case is to enhance the ratio for promotion in the feeder cadre for the post of ACWA. In TA-1051/2009 this aspect was considered. The reasoning of the respondents were also found convincing. They have submitted in the said OA that the promotional avenue for Assistant Bacteriologists to the post of Bacteriologists was considerably high as compared to the Assistant Chemists to the post of Chemists. For 6 posts of Bacteriologist, the strength of feeder cadre of Assistant Bacteriologists was only 9 but in the case of 19 posts of Chemists the strength of the feeder cadre of Assistant Chemists was 60. Accordingly, while the promotional avenues of Assistant Chemists to that of Chemists was only 30%, the promotional avenues of Assistant Bacteriologists to the post of Bacteriologist was 90%. The ratio of the feeder categories for promotion to the post of ACWA, namely, the Chemists and Bacteriologists was, therefore, fixed in the ratio 80:20 purposefully so that there will not be extreme disparity between both the categories in the promotional post. As this Tribunal has accepted the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents in the aforesaid TA No.1051/2009, the relief sought by the applicant to enhance the aforesaid ratio is another way of seeking the same relief. Therefore, we fully agree with the counsel for respondents that this case is hit by principles of res judicata. Accordingly, this OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
sd