SHAMBHU DUTT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20th March, 2009 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No.1983/2008 titled Sh.Shambhu Dutt v. Union of India & ors dismissing the original application of the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent declaring the petitioner successful and having qualified the ministerial staff (UDC) for the year 2006 and to consider him for promotion to UDC/STA. The brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner joined as a Group D employee in the year 1991 and later on he was promoted on adhoc basis as an LDC (Lower Division Clerk). He was regularized as LDC with effect from 16th February, 2001. While working as LDC, which post was also re-designated as Tax Assistant, he appeared in the departmental examination for the post of UDC (Upper Division Clerk). He cleared one paper in 1997 and paper II & IV in 2000. He also passed the computer knowledge test on 16th June, 2003. Another paper was cleared by him in the examination held in 2006 and the results declared in 2007. However, in the examination for the year 2006 for the post of UDC, he was shown absent against three papers, which he alleged that he had qualified in earlier examination. In the examination held in 2006, the petitioner was therefore, not declared successful. Consequently he gave a representation which was not accepted and rejected by letter dated 24th September, 2007.

(2.) Aggrieved by the rejection of the request of the petitioner to declare him successful in the examination for the post of UDC he filed an original application. He relied on a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Laxman Singh Bisht v. U.O.I and Ors being O.A No.2031/2006 where similar relief as claimed by the petitioner was allegedly granted. The petition was contested by the respondents contending inter- alia that he had appeared only in one paper III and was absent in other three papers of UDC examination, 2006. According to the respondents as per amended rules, the candidates promoted on adhoc basis were required to appear in all papers fresh. Reliance was also placed on various letters and circulars issued specifying that ad-hoc promotes were not eligible to appear in the departmental examination which was meant for regular grade. It was also clarified that the adhoc candidates who had appeared in the Ministerial Examination in earlier years, their marks of earlier years were not to be considered for promotion to the post of UDC and candidates having regular appointments as LDCs were eligible to appear in the examination. Regarding the reliance of the petitioner on Laxman Singh Bisht (Supra) in which case the candidate had not been intimated about appearing in all the papers fresh, it was contended that the petitioner in the present case was advised individually and personally by letter dated 6th October, 2006 which was served on him. Reliance was also placed on various circulars which were duly displayed on the notice board of the office and in these circumstances, it was contended before the Tribunal that the petitioner was fully aware of the decision that he had to appear in all the papers in 2006 examination. In the notification for the examination also it was categorically stipulated that the candidates would be required to appear in all the papers in the examination.

(3.) The Tribunal after hearing both the parties specifically relied on the notification which clearly stipulated that all the candidates have to appear afresh as a rule, as the marks obtained in earlier examination when the petitioner was working as ad-hoc and not as regular LDC shall not be taken into consideration. The relevant extract of the notification dated 3rd October, 2006 is as under:-