RAJENDER PRASAD Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dtd. 7/12/2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in O.A. 3224/2016. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the petitioners' challenge to the abolishment of the 5% quota earlier reserved for Enquiry Attendants and Road Inspectors for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The learned Tribunal has however, quashed the decision of the respondent to seek recovery of the additional payments made to the petitioner on account of the erroneous implementation of the time bound promotion scheme. The petitioners also assail the order dtd. 16/1/2019 vide which their review application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order in so far as it rejects the petitioners' prayer for being granted the benefit of reservation for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), is wholly perverse. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the respondent having introduced on 28/10/1986, a 5% reservation for Enquiry Attendants and Road Inspectors for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), the said reservation could not be subsequently withdrawn. He submits that as a result of this reservation, the petitioner, who joined the corporation in 1974, is being discriminated against as all similarly situated Enquiry Attendants, who were senior to the petitioners have been promoted as Junior Engineer (Civil), only as a result of this reservation.

(3.) He submits that the learned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that on account of withdrawal of this benefit of 5% reservation for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), granted pursuant to the circular dtd. 28/10/1986, the right which had accrued in favour of the petitioners on account of this circular has been withdrawn. He contends that such a vested right which has already accrued in favour of the petitioners could not have been withdrawn without granting them the benefit of this reservation, which benefit had been extended to all their seniors. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside to this extent.