R SUNDAR RAJU Vs. V RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions, the challenge is to the order dated 4-7-2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 807 of 2005 as well as the order dated 4-7-2006 passed in O. A. No. 57 of 2006, allowing the applications filed by the first respondent herein.

(2.) A deputationist stakes his claim against a departmental engineer to cling on to the highest post of Chief Engineer in the Public Works Department of Government of Pondicherry. That is the crux of the issue in these writ petitions.

(3.) FACTS, in brief, leading to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows: when the post of Chief Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD) of Government of Pondicherry fell vacant in the year 2004, the Government proceeded to fill up the vacancy by transfer of deputation. For that purpose, the Government addressed a letter dated 30-1-2004 to the Director General of Central Public Works Department (CPWD) to send a panel of eligible and willing officers. An office memorandum dated 10-2-2004 was issued by the CPWD inviting options from the eligible officers working in the CPWD. One V. Ramakrishnan (hereinafter called the first respondent), who was working as Superintending Engineer with Central Public Works Department (CPWD), Pondicherry applied to the said post and was selected and appointed as Chief Engineer on short term deputation basis with effect from 1-7-2004. While so, one R. Sundar Raju, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, working as Superintending Engineer in the PWD, Pondicherry filed an original application (O. A. No. 581 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal"), challenged the practice of filling up the post of Chief Engineer by transfer on deputation, but unsuccessful as the said application was disposed of with out granting any relief to the petitioner. The first respondent was, however, by order dated 14-2-2005, repatriated to his parent department and the petitioner was directed to hold the additional charge of the post of Chief Engineer. The first respondent challenged his repatriation and also the appointment of the petitioner as Chief Engineer in O. A. No. 150 of 2005. The said original application was allowed and the repatriation order was set aside. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in writ petitions filed by the Government as well as the petitioner, but the writ petitions were dismissed. Against which appeals were preferred before the Supreme Court. In the mean time, the Government decided to relax the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of the Chief Engineer and accordingly amended the recruitment rule in so far it related to the recruitment by way of promotion. The draft amended recruitment rules was sent to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for approval. The appeals, which were pending before the Supreme Court, were dismissed and consequently, the first respondent was reappointed in the post of Chief Engineer. The first respondent challenged the amendment to Clause 12 of RR, 1996 before the Tribunal in O. A. No. 807 of 2005. While so, the Ministry of Urban Development, the cadre controlling authority of the first respondent, by order dated 20-1-2005 recalled the services of the first respondent from the PWD, Pondicherry and he was immediately relieved by the Government by the order of the even date and simultaneously, the petitioner was promoted and appointed as Chief Engineer, PWD, on ad hoc basis. These orders were challenged by the first respondent before the Tribunal in O. A. No. 57 of 2006. The Tribunal by its order dated 4-7-2006 allowed O. A. No. 807 of 2005 quashed the amendment to the recruitment rules and also set aside the orders passed by the Ministry of Urban Development as well as the Government of Pondicherry and directed the authorities concerned to restore first respondent in service as Chief Engineer (Civil) in the PWD, Pondicherry. It is against these orders of the Tribunal, the present writ petitions have been filed.