Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
H.K. Gupta Son Of Shri R.K. Das Gupta And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 29 November, 2006
ORDER Shanker Raju, Member (J)
1. Applicants, Junior Engineers (JEs) in CPWD, seek re-calculation of vacancies w.e.f. 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2002 and consequent promotion as a result of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2002 in the additional vacancies so made available with declaration of result dated 17.3.2003.
2. Brief factual matrix transpires that applicants who are JEs (Civil) their next avenue for promotion as per Group 'B' Service Recruitment Rules, 1997 of Central Engineering Group 'B' is to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), which is filled 50% from seniority quota having 8 years' regular service as JE and 50% by LDCE to be conducted by CPWD. The LDCE conducted for the year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 shown total 131 vacancies, out of which 58 to be filled in 2000-2001 and 73 in 2001-2002. Applicants, who appeared for LDCE 2002, of which result was declared on 17.3.2003 in which applicants secured 501 and 511 for the year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 respectively and could not come within the zone of consideration. In OA-1357/2003 filed by one of Junior Engineers, namely, Vinod Garg, respondents have been directed to re-calculate the vacancies for the year 1999-2003 and to fill in LDCE of 2002. OA was allowed on 29.4.2004. As a compliance thereof, 22 more candidates on the basis of LDCE were promoted. However, applicants state that whereas the vacancies which have arisen additionally from the year 1999-2000 were 19, for 2000-2001 17, and for the year 2001-2002 being 46, total vacancies which would have come in the quota for applicants in the LDCE is 23 against 22 as per the order passed by the respondents on 16.9.2004. Accordingly, it is stated that another LDCE for 134 vacancies was declared but the examination has not taken place. Now the vacancies filled up out of LDCE are 61 for the year 2002-2003 and are to be filled up as a result of LDCE, 2002. In nutshell applicants seek implementation of decision in Vinod Garg's case (supra), where the following observations have been made:
7. Having regard to the principles laid down in order dated 15.2.1999 in OA Nos. 2239/1998 and 2526/1998 (Annexure-2), we are of the firm view that adjustment of 61 excess LDCE promotions prior to 1993 against the year 1993-94 at one go is totally unjustified. As a matter of fact, respondents should not have resorted to excess recruitment to such an extent from LDCE 1992. If at all administrative exigencies warranted adjustment it should have been kept within reasonable limits. In any case, such a large number could not have been adjusted against the vacancies of one year. They could have been evenly spread over a long period of time. In the interest of justice and finding merit in the contentions raised on behalf of applicants, though we do not intend issuing any directions adversely affecting the rights of the private respondents at this stage, we direct respondents to declare results of 55 more candidates, i.e., beyond merit rank 336 and up to 391, in view of the declared number of vacancies of 391 for LDCE 1999. All these 55 candidates should be adjusted against the 1994-95 LDCE quota. 6 candidates of 61 adjusted from LDCE 1992 against 1993-94 would be adjusted against 1993-94 quota. The remaining excess of LDCE 1992 should be equitably adjusted in the remaining years up to 1998-99. 55 candidates from LDCE 1993 whose result would be declared and promoted under LDCE quota shall be given consequential benefits. The entire exercise as directed above shall be completed by respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of these orders.
3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that as per their calculation of vacancies total vacancies to be filled through LDCE 2002 were 153 and it is stated that there has been a miscalculation by applicants and their claim cannot be countenanced.
4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record.
5. Having found in Vinod Garg's case (supra) that there has been a miscalculation of vacancies for LDCE, 2002, respondents' stand that on considering 22 more candidates clearly shows that their calculation had been faulty and in the present case also is not as per the factual account. Clubbing of all those retired at one go for the year 2002 is not understandable.
6. We respectfully follow Vinod Garg's case (supra), as applicants are similarly circumstanced inasmuch as in that case LDCE, 2002 and re-calculation was the issue. Accordingly, this OA stands disposed of with a direction to respondents to re-calculate the vacancies afresh against year-wise quota and in such an event applicants' case may be considered for promotion with all consequential benefits. No costs.