KUTUB SINGH Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these proceedings challenge a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 18.02.2011 in T.A. No.1191/2009. That application had initially been preferred as a writ petition before this Court which was directed to be transferred to the CAT. The initial order of 05.02.2010 was made by the CAT which was challenged by the petitioner, the Delhi Jal Board (hereafter called "the DJB"). The order of this court, in writ proceedings, dated 26.08.2010 noticed that the CAT had not earlier worked out the vacancy position nor reflected what fell within the promotion quota for the reserved categories. In these circumstances, the matter was remitted for reconsideration. By the present impugned order, the CAT dismissed the petitioners ' applications.

(2.) THE petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) by the DJB sometime in 1982 against the backlog carry -forward vacancies earmarked for SC candidates. They were entrusted with current duty charge in a higher post - which was also the promotional post - as Assistant Engineers on various dates - i.e 14.06.1996, 27.09.1996 and 22.01.1997. They discharged the duties attached to the post of AE (Civil) and drew the salary applicable to that grade. In the Final Seniority List published on 19.08.2002 for AE (Civil), the petitioners were not shown as holders of that post. They accordingly felt aggrieved and preferred writ petition - W.P.(C) 1691/2003 before this Court. Sometime in 2009, that writ petition was transferred to the CAT and registered as T.A. No.1191/2009 since the DJB was notified as an organization subject to CAT 's jurisdiction. By its earlier order dated 05.02.2010, the petitioners ' application was allowed. Eight individuals as well as the DJB approached this Court by filing writ petition, being W.P.(C) 3379/2010 and W.P.(C) 3827/2010. Both the writ petitions were disposed of on 26.08.2010 by a common order and the matter was remitted for reconsideration by the CAT, which was directed to work -out the vacancy position and, particularly, what fell to the quota of SC/ST candidates in the promotional cadre of AE (Civil).

(3.) THE CAT, after considering the contentions of the parties, by its impugned order, rejected the petitioners ' arguments that they were entitled to be considered as regularly appointed on the date they were given ad hoc promotion or on the date they were given current duty charge. In arriving at this conclusion, the CAT took note of the total cadre strength of AEs and the extent of vacancies that existed at the time. The relevant findings of the CAT are extracted below: