GURBAAZ SINGH & ORS Vs. UOI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petitions challenge an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 5.12.2000 and a subsequent order dated 30.05.2002 (latter in the course of proceedings which sought review of the earlier impugned order). The writ petitioners are directly recruited officers in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers (AEE) which is a feeder grade to the post of Executive Engineer (EE) in the CPWD.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that in the Central Engineering Service, the cadre of EE is to be filled from two sources, i.e., officials directly recruited from open competition (AEEs) and from amongst Assistant Engineers (AEs). The latter category comprises of two sub-divisions, i.e., graduates and diploma holders. For diploma holders, historically the eligibility was in the original rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution in 1956. Initially, diploma holder Assistant Engineers were not entitled to promotion as EE. However, this situation changed in 1972 with an amendment which enabled diploma holders, with outstanding merit, to be considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on an ad hoc basis. The present dispute concerns the sequel to a Presidential order/Notification of 06.07.1999, diverting 430 vacancies in the AEEs' quota within the EE cadre which otherwise ought to have been filled in accordance with the quota stipulation. The post of EE was to be filled in the quota ratio of 2:1 between AEEs (direct recruits) and AEs (promotes), respectively. In other words, 66.6% of EE vacancies were to be filled by AEEs, while 33.3% were to be filed by AEs. The diversion of the posts was for the period prior to 28.10.1996 (i.e. the date on which newly framed rules under Article 309 of the Constitution came into force). The Central Government felt compelled to take recourse to this action because of non-availability of direct recruits AEEs in adequate numbers, for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers. This action was challenged by the AEEs through their Association (Class-I Direct Recruits Engineering Service Association). The challenge was repelled initially by the Tribunal. Upon proceedings being preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal in the judgment reported as Central Engineering Services Class-I (DR) Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2009 156 DLT 300. Apparently, this decision has been carried in appeal by the unsuccessful direct recruit AEEs by special leave to the Supreme Court where the proceedings are pending.

(3.) The present respondents (AEs), in the meanwhile, had approached the CAT for directions to fill the balance vacancies, which arose after filling up 322 vacancies in the post of Executive Engineers in accordance with the 1954 Rules. Their complaint was that the en masse action in regularizing all diploma holders AEs in the post of EEs was contrary to the pre-existing rules, inasmuch as it conflicted with the requirement of the zone of consideration as well as eligibility conditions.