Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The respondents have contested the case and filed their counter reply, denying the allegations made in the OA. However, it has been alleged by the respondents 1 and 2 in their counter reply that in DGE&T under Employment Directorate, there are so many small cadres. In the year 2004, it was proposed that the posts having the similar scales of pay in the DGE&T (Hqrs.) as well as in CIRTES and VRCs may be clubbed in a single unified cadre, which would provide uniformity and give equal opportunities to all for betterment of career prospects of promotion, timely filling up of the posts and availability of sufficient number of persons in the feeder grade for promotion. It is pleaded that the proposed amendment was also necessitated due to upgradation of the posts of Joint Director of Employment Exchanges in the scale of Rs.15600-39100 (PB-3) + Rs.7600 Grade Pay (revised) [Rs.12000-16500 (pre-revised)], and merger of the post of Additional Director of Employment Exchanges with the former. For amendment in the recruitment rules, approval of the DOP&T, UPSC and Ministry of Law is required, and when the proposal was referred to DOP&T for its approval, it was initially not agreeable to the insertion of the proposed amendment. However, later on the DOP&T agreed to the proposal on 08.06.2006 when the matter was discussed and taken up with higher officers. The proposal for amendment of combined recruitment rules was also referred to UPSC on 10.07.2006. After approval of the DOP&T, the proposal for amendment of combined recruitment rules for different Group A gazetted posts was sent to UPSC for its approval and the UPSC suggested that the specific orders regarding clubbing/amalgamation of different categories of posts needed to be issued by the Ministry before the proposal was processed by the UPSC. As per advice of UPSC and after obtaining approval of the Labour Ministry, an order No.DGE&T-A/12018/1/2004-Adm.II dated 16.01.2008 was issued regarding re-designation of various posts. Under these circumstances, vide the order aforesaid all Group A gazetted posts in the identical pay scales in the Employment Directorate under DGE&T were clubbed/amalgamated and re-designated. In the order it has been mentioned that the incumbents of the re-designated posts would have no claim to seniority/promotion in respective cadres of Employment Directorate for the same or higher posts, and would be governed by the inter se seniority drawn for the Employment Directorate. The above mentioned order is a departmental order and can be replaced/modified at any stage on the advice of UPSC/DOP&T/Ministry of Law. The recruitment rules are statutory rules and cannot be replaced or modified by executive order/instructions, and the executive order/instructions cannot give any right to any person, including the applicant, to base his claim on the same. The post of Senior Programmer in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 (pre-revised) [Rs.15600-39100 (PB-3) Grade Pay Rs.6600 (revised)] and Programmer in the scale of Rs.8000-13500 (pre-revised) [Rs.15600-39100 (PB-3) Grade Pay Rs.5400 (revised)] was not included in the proposed recruitment rules as the duties and educational qualifications of the above said posts are different from that of the Deputy Director of Employment Exchanges and Assistant Director of Employment Exchanges. There was no similarity between the posts of Senior Programmer and Deputy Director, and that of Programmer with Assistant Director. There is no promotional avenue for the post of Senior Programmer, as this is an isolated post. A representation was submitted by the applicant for inclusion of the post of Senior Programmer in the proposed recruitment rules, but his request was not acceded to. However, the request of the applicant was acceded to for inclusion of the post of Senior Programmer in the combined recruitment rules, and office order dated 06.12.2010 was issued, but prior approval of DOP&T and UPSC has not been obtained. The post of Joint Director of Employment Exchanges is the promotional post for Deputy Director of Employment Exchanges and Senior Scientific Officer Grade-I. As per existing recruitment rules, the post of Joint Director is required to be filled by promotion failing which by transfer on deputation (including short-term contract). Deputy Director of Employment Exchanges and Senior Scientific Officer Grade-I with two years of regular service in their respective grade are eligible for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Employment Exchanges. Two vacancies of Joint Director were available due to ad hoc promotion of Shri K. S. Meena to the post of Deputy Director and due to retirement of Shri S. K. Seth w.e.f. 29.02.2008. Proposal for one time relaxation was sent to UPSC, but it was returned with the remarks that the existing recruitment rules for the post of Joint Director are inoperative. The proposal for determination of mode of recruitment for filling the post in question as a one time measure pending amendment/notification of revised rules cannot be entertained. The proposal for filling up of the two posts of Joint Director on the basis of existing recruitment rules was sent to UPSC, and they recommended the names of Shri B. L. Meena, Shri R. D. Meena and Shri A. S. Khan for promotion to the post of Joint Director. The recommendations relating to Shri R. D. Meena were kept in sealed cover as he was facing disciplinary proceedings. Order was passed in the OA for maintaining status quo. Hence, the promotion orders have been kept pending. The name of the applicant, Senior Programmer, was not included in the combined seniority list as the proposal for filling up of the two posts of Joint Director of Employment Exchanges was based on the existing recruitment rules, and the proposal was returned by the UPSC. It is pleaded that issuance of orders dated 16.01.2008 and 06.12.2010 would not confer any right on the applicant or any other person concerned, and it cannot be enforced. The OA is stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as also lacking merit, and needs to be dismissed.

8. The main contesting parties are the respondents 1 and 2. There is no denial of the fact that office orders dated 16.01.2008 and 02/06.12.2010 were not issued. It has been contended in the counter reply filed by the respondents that issuing these orders would not confer any right of any kind on any of the persons/employees, including the applicant, and that these are mere administrative orders and cannot be enforced until and unless the same are culminated into statutory recruitment rules. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for these respondents that these office orders will not be deemed to be statutory recruitment rules and these are simply administrative orders. We tried to ascertain from the advocate of these respondents as to whether these rules were enforced and implemented by the respondents, and the respondents advocate would insist that these rules were not implemented or enforced. We have tried to ascertain as to what is the present designation of the applicant after issuance of the order dated 02/06.12.2010. No satisfactory reply was given by the respondents of this query. However, on behalf of the applicant, certain papers were produced before us in order to demonstrate that the order dated 02/06.12.2010 had already been implemented and the applicant has been re-designated as Deputy Director. He produced an identity card issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and in this identity card the designation of the applicant has been shown as Deputy Director, DGE&T. One more order dated 11.05.2011 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, DGE&T has been produced, wherein also the designation of the applicant is shown as Deputy Director. Certain duty has been entrusted to the applicant, and in the order aforesaid the applicant has been shown to be Deputy Director. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is unjustified that the orders dated 16.01.2008 and 02/06.12.2010 have not been implemented. The only question that remains is whether any rules were framed as to how the seniority of the re-designated employees shall be determined, and whether any seniority list was prepared. This argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is not tenable that even after issuing the office orders dated 16.01.2008 and 02/06.12.2010, the cadre of the employees would remain the same, although they were called as Deputy Directors. It has been stated by the respondents in their counter reply that the posts of Senior Programmer in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 (pre-revised) and Programmer in the scale of Rs.8000-13500 (pre-revised) were not included in the proposed recruitment rules, as the duties and educational qualification of the above said posts are different from that of the Deputy Director of Employment and Assistant Director of Employment, and hence the posts of Senior Programmer and Programmer were not included in the said proposal. These posts are stated to be technical posts having no similarity with the posts of Assistant Director and Deputy Director. There are no promotional avenues for the post of Senior Programmer as this is an isolated post, and the applicant is the Senior Programmer and hence, he has no claim for the promotional post of Joint Director of Employment.