A K GAUTAM Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 08.03.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal), whereby O.A. No. 2980/1997 filed by the private respondents was allowed. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition can be summarized as under:-

(2.) The Tribunal vide impugned order 08.03.1999 allowed the OA and set aside the order dated 30.09.1997 to the extent of promotions granted to respondents 5 to 13 in violation of 'law on reservations'. The official respondents were directed to adjust 23 Scheduled Castes and 9 Scheduled Tribes Officers against general category posts and thereafter determine the number of reserved posts, which were to be filled-up by SC/ST Officers as per rules of reservations and make appointments in terms of rules and regulations on the subject. They were also directed to consider those of the applicants and other eligible SC/ST officers, who were in the zone of consideration for promotion against reserved posts for appointment in the manner directed by the Tribunal and if found suitable, promote them with effect from 30.09.1997 with all consequential benefits as regards seniority in the grade of Superintendent. No backwages, however, were to be paid to them. They were also directed to hold review DPC to consider the cases of applicants and other eligible SC/ST officers, for promotion against reserved vacancies, which at the time of order of the Tribunal were occupied by respondents 5 to 34 in the OA.

(3.) We may note at the very outset that the constitutional validity of the OM dated 2.7.1997, issued by DoP&T has not been challenged in this petition. A number of OMs were issued during the pendency of this petition. Most of them form part of the compilation submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The constitutional validity of none of these OMs has been challenged before us. This is also not the contention of the petitioner before us, that reservation in promotions to the cadre of Superintendent is unconstitutional.