Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Virender Singh vs Union Of India Through on 26 July, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-401/2011
New Delhi this the 26th day of July, 2011.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Sh. Virender Singh,
S/o Sh. Sohan Pal,
R/o 98-B, Pocket A-2,
Mayur Vihar Pt.III,
Delhi-96. . Applicant
(through Sh. Susheel Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
the Secretary,
Ministry of Women and Child
Development, Shashtri Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. The Executive Director,
Central Social Welfare Board,
Dr. DURGABAI DESHMUKH
SAMAJ KALYAN BHAVAN,
B-12, Qutab Institutional Area,
New Delhi-16.
3. Dy. Director (Pers.),
Central Social Welfare Board,
DR. DURGABAI DESHMUKH
SAMAJ KALYAN BHAVAN,
B-12, Qutab Institutional Area,
New Delhi-16. . Respondents
(through Sh. Jubair Ahmed Khan with Sh. Zulfikar Ali Khan,Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) The applicant has challenged the order dated 15.12.2010 of respondent No.3 by which his request for regular promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-C was rejected. His prayer is to set aside this order and to direct the respondents to hold a review DPC and grant him regular promotion w.e.f. 01.03.2006 when the backlog reserved vacancy on the post of Stenographer Grade-C was available.
2. The applicant, who belongs to scheduled caste (SC) category, was appointed as Stenographer Grade-D on 06.11.1990. After completion of five years of regular service he became eligible for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-C. He was being promised that his case will be considered as and when a vacancy arose. He came to know that even in spite of his representation dated 31.05.2010, respondents were going ahead with holding of DPC for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-C. He made a representation again and was informed on 06.07.2010 that one backlog vacancy reserved for SC category was lying vacant since 01.03.2006 and the DPC for filling up the post would be held soon. The applicant was promoted to Stenographer Grade-C on ad hoc basis on 24.09.2010 and it was mentioned that it would not bestow any seniority to him. He was called on 22.10.2010 and given a personal hearing. Although the respondents issued a letter stating that the applicant was satisfied with the action taken on his representations, he denied having made any such statement and served a legal notice on the respondents. The respondents have passed the impugned order on the legal notice received; hence this O.A.
3. The short point which was canvassed at the time of hearing is that a backlog reserved vacancy is available since 01.03.2006. The candidature of the applicant was not considered by the DPC which was held on 22.04.2010 on the ground that he did not come within the zone of consideration. The DPC held on 17.08.2010 recommended to promote him to the higher grade on ad hoc basis until he came within the prescribed zone of consideration.
3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the reserved candidates should be considered on the basis of a separate zone of consideration ear-marked for them, not with general candidates. The principle of normal zone of consideration, or extended zone of consideration is not applicable to reserved candidates. On the other hand, the available candidates belonging to reserved categories should constitute a separate zone of consideration. In this connection, he referred to the minutes of the meeting taken by the Honble Member of National Commission for ST with the representative of DoP&T on 15.07.2009 (pages-52 to 55). In this meeting the Honble Member argued that a separate zone of consideration for SC/ST candidate should be applied at the time of promotion of candidates belonging to reserved category. The relevant recommendation as recorded in the minutes of this meeting reads as under:-
(i) DOPT may issue instruction in compliance with the Honble Supreme Court judgement in CA No. 4026/1988 regarding separate zone of consideration for SC/ST candidates, so that eligible SC/ST candidates may be promoted against the available vacancies without any barrier as imposed by the extended zone of consideration. 3.2 Learned counsel contends that since a reference has been made to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in this meeting, the respondent authorities should have acted in consonance with that judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that instructions of DoP&T dated 17.10.1990 relating to promotion to Group-B post through application of the principle of selection-cum-seniority holds the field as regards the method of calculation of the zone of consideration. It clarifies that the zone of consideration in respect of one vacancy for reserved categories is five. Admittedly the vacancy available with the respondents is only one. The present position of the applicant in the seniority list is at Serial No.15. Therefore, he could not come under the zone of consideration. His case for regular promotion will be taken up as and when he comes within the zone of consideration. He drew out attention to the statement made by the representative of the DoP&T in the aforesaid meeting with the Honble Member of National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (page-53) that the extended zone of consideration provided in the O.M. 06.01.2006 is equivalent to the separate zone of consideration which has been mentioned in the aforesaid order of Honble Supreme Court. According to the department, their view was supported by the Attorney General of India that extended zone of consideration is substantially equivalent to a separate zone of consideration. It was also clarified that the barrier of zone of consideration has been removed by the DoP&T in their O.M. dated 15.03.2002 in respect of ad hoc promotion. In these circumstances, the applicant has been given ad hoc promotion and his case for regular promotion will be taken up as and when he came up within the prescribed zone of consideration.
5. We find that though the issue of constituting a separate zone of consideration was taken up by the Honble Member of National Commission of ST with the DoP&T no formal Office Memorandum has been issued. Therefore, the respondents have to act according to the instructions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 06.01.2006 which more or less reiterates the instructions issued earlier on 17.10.1990 on the subject of zone of consideration. So far, the Government has taken a view that provision of extended zone of consideration constitutes compliance with the observations of the Honble Supreme Court for a separate zone of consideration; no other instructions have been issued by the Government in this regard.
6. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present application seeking a direction to the respondents to promote him to the higher grade on regular basis when he does not come within the prescribed zone of consideration. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /vv/