GULAB HARIBHAU DHABALE Vs. SANJAY R. SOMKUWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the prayer of the learned Counsel for the parties, these two original applications were heard together since identical questions of law is involved and the applicants have also prayed for common relief and hence a common order is being passed. The applicants while working in the Central Excise and Customs department as Superintendent Group 'B' have filed these OAs praying for the following reliefs: - -

(2.) THE grievance of the applicants is that they were unduly denied the promotion to the grade of Superintendent of Customs in Group 'B' during the period 2002 -03 when the vacancies arose. The applicants were promoted belatedly on 15.10.2007. The applicants were denied their due promotion in the year 2002 -03 on the plea that they did not come under the zone of consideration though they fulfilled the eligibility criteria of 8 years regular service as per the Recruitment Rules. The respondents promoted 26 Inspectors vide Establishment Order No. 78 of 2002 dated 31.7.2002 and 444 Inspectors vide Establishment Order No. 88 of 2002 dated 23.9.2002. The total promotions worked out to be 470. Taking 5 times of above said 470 vacancies, the zone of consideration ought to have worked out to 2350. Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 in O.A. No. 563/2008 stood respectively at Sl. Nos. 1928, 1932, 1992 (No serial number is given in respect of applicant No. 4) as on 1.1.1996. Applicant Nos. 1 to 4 in O.A. No. 564/2008 stood respectively at Sl. Nos. 1995, 2002 and 2004 as on 1.1.1996. The contention of the applicants were that they were within the zone of consideration. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, separate list for SC/ST candidates should have been drawn for considering the promotions arranged in order of their inter se seniority in the main list.

(3.) THE applicants by their representation submitted before the authorities that they were eligible for promotion to the grade of Superintendent Group 'B' from 2002 -03 and 2003 -04 and not from 2007. The delay in granting promotion to them has caused serious prejudice regarding their future promotions in the grade of Group 'A' and their loss of seniority in the promotional grade. Clubbing SC/ST with the general candidates in the zone of consideration would defeat the very purpose of reservation. The Authorities ought to have drawn a separate list of SC/ST candidates and a separate zone ought to have been considered for the promotion of reserved category candidates. The applicants have stated in the O.A. that respondent No. 1 prima facie accepted that injustice was done to SC/ST candidates vide O.M. dated 10th August, 2006 informing the Welfare Association of Aurangabad that the issue would be placed before the Lok Sabha Secretariat for certain exercise.