PRADEEP KUMAR TYAGI AND SHAILENDER KUMAR SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND DIRECTOR GENERAL, SHASHASTRA SEEMA BAL, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 wherein the applicants are not aggrieved by any particular order of the respondents but have rather challenged non -holding of DPC for their promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) [hereinafter referred to as EE (Civil)] despite availability of vacancies since the year 2007. The applicants are admittedly Assistant Engineers (Civil) [hereinafter referred to as AE (Civil)], recruited in the year 1994 who became eligible for promotion for EE (Civil) on completion of 8 years of service in the year 2002. The case of the applicants is that they are governed by the Cabinet Secretariat, Special Service Bureau (Engineering Service) Recruitment Rules, 2000 communicated vide Notification OM dated 05.04.2000. These rules provide that the term Cadre Strength denotes the number of posts required to be filled up by a particular mode of recruitment. In a grade comprising 200 posts where the Recruitment Rules, 1998 prescribes a ratio of 40:40:20 for direct recruitment, promotion and deputation, the cadre strength for direct recruitment and promotion will be 80 each with the remaining 40 posts to be filled up by deputation. Reservation would not apply to the posts to be filled up by deputation while it would apply to the other categories namely direct recruitment and promotion. The cadre of EE (Civil) comprised 14 posts out of which admittedly 50% or 7 posts to be filled up by promotion amongst the AEs(Civil) having a qualifying service of 8 years.

(2.) THE applicants submit that the respondents, in terms of the DoP&T OM dated 19.01.2007, were required to fill up the vacancies as became available in the year 2007 as per the vacancy based roster. The case of the applicants is that the cadre of EE (Civil) comprises 14 number of posts. 50% of these posts or 7 in number are required to be filled up by promotion from amongst the AEs(Civil) having 8 years of regular service. The available vacancy in the year 2007 which was 7 in number, were required to be filled up in a ratio of 50:50 amongst the eligible candidates, including AE(civil) having 8 years of old service. However, the applicants allege that the respondents did not fill up all the 7 vacancies in terms of OM dated 19.01.2007.

(3.) THE respondents have filed a counter affidavit and opposed the contentions in the OA. The respondents short case is that as the existing recruitment rules of Executive Engineers is post based and not vacancy based, the vacancies meant for direct recruitment/absorption/deputation cannot be transferred to promotion quota. It is stated that though they had made such a proposal for transfer of vacancies from direct recruitment/absorption/deputation quota to the promotion quota but this was turned down by the DOP&T. Therefore, to their understanding unless the recruitment rules are amended allowing for such transfer, it is not possible for the respondents to transfer the vacancies from the direct recruitment/absorption/deputation to the promotion quota. The respondents have, however, labored to press the points here that it is necessary to maintain a balance between the posts to be filled up by deputation and those to be filled up by promotion and no one group should be allowed to usurp the rights of others which the applicants have been trying to do.