Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. For similar examinations to be held in future respondents shall also consider (1) the possible of strictly maintaining 1 : 1 ratio year-wise between DPC and LDCE candidates making them widely known through departmental notice boards; any feasibility of ensuring that the posts falling vacant caused by DPC-promotees could be filled up through DPC candidates and those caused by LDCE promotes could be filled through examination and (iii) for making 1 : 1 ratio for the newly created posts as mandatory.
5) We have also to determine the issue as to whether any rights get created in favour of those JEs who have completed 4 years of regular service in the grade, for an LDCE to be necessarily conducted in a particular Select List Year, for a given number of vacancies, irrespective of whether the corresponding equal number of seniority-cum-merit based promotions have been granted through the DPC route in that year or not?
6) It is seen from the pleadings that in between the whole process, there was a Cadre re-structuring or Cadre-review also, and the number of vacancies of AEs in both categories of Civil and Electrical were thereafter increased. We have to decide as to what is the impact of such a Cadre-restructuring or Cadre-review? Does a Cadre re-structuring or Cadre-review undertaken in a Select List Year, creating extra posts, necessarily create extra vacancies also in that very Select List Year, for being filled up immediately, and does the creation of these extra posts create an equal number of extra vacancies also in the very same Select List Year, requiring for them to be added to be vacancies of that Select List Years LDCE and DPC seniority-cum-merit categories of vacancies, on 50%-50% sub-quota each basis, or the extra posts so created by a Cadre re-structuring or Cadre-review can be filled up gradually over the next couple of years, or they can be filled up through any one of the two available alternative routes, say by only granting seniority-cum-merit based promotions through DPC, for the whole of the increased number, as had happened in the instant case at the time of Cadre re-structuring or Cadre- review, as is apparent from the pleadings?
11) The most important issue/question to be answered by us is as to whether in the absence of any such procedure or process having been prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, as reproduced above in para 113/ante, the unsaid and invisible, yet voluntary prescription of 50% sub-quota for DPC based promotions after 8 years of regular service, and 50% sub-quota for LDCE based promotions after 4,5,6, or 7 years of regular service, but before 8 years of regular service as JE, require and entitle the LDCE selectees to be interpolated and placed in between the DPC based promotees, by placing the first LDCE based selectee between the first and the second DPC based promotee, and the second LDCE promotee between the second and the third DPC based promotee, and so on, as appears to have been done in the CPWD, in the past, or does the law as laid down provide and require only that the number of LDCE promotees should be determined as on 1st of April of Select List Year, on the basis of the DPC based promotions given from the 1st of April of the previous year to the 31st of March of that year, and then, after the conduct of the LDCE, all such LDCE promotees to be placed en-bloc below all those who had got promotions through the DPC route in the meanwhile, from 1st of April of the beginning of the Select List year to 31st of March of the end of that Select List Year next year, because the CPWD Select List Year runs from 1st of April to the 31st of March of the next year?

119. The matter regarding fixation of inter-se-seniority on the basis of the 01.11.1962 instructions/Rules had reached the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in TA No.556 of 1986 Mohinder Kumar & Ors. vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. (1987 (5) ATC 170). The Chandigarh Bench disposed of that TA on 23.01.1987, directing the re-casting of the seniority list of UDCs by treating both the DPC promotees and LDCE selectees as promotees, and laying down the correct proposition of law that both the DPC and LDCE routes are only two methods of promotion, and that there was no element of direct recruitment involved in conducting the LDCE, by stating as follows:-