UNION OF INDIA Vs. GIAN SINGH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts, sequelling the institution of the writ petition, at the instance of the petitioners, are of the respondent having joined service with the petitioner -Department as Stenographer Grade -III with the Army Training Command on 17.6.1995. Subsequently, he, in March 2006, was promoted as Stenographer Grade -I. The respondent, through his representation of 2.8.2012, drew the attention of the petitioner -Department to the judgment, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was forwarded by the ARTRAC to the competent authority at Delhi, under Annexure A -4. However, the competent authority, in its communication, comprised in Annexure A -5 with OA, rejected the representation of the respondent on the ground that the judgment, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, is applicable to the State of U.P. only. Besides, it was further conveyed to the respondent, under communication of 28.9.2012, that in case of Central Government Employees, a notification for implementation of judgments, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is notified by the Nodal Agency i.e. DOP & T and since no notification has been issued in the present case for implementing the orders in Central Government offices, no action is required to be taken in the present case on the basis of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

(2.) THE respondent was dissatisfied and aggrieved with the rejection of his case for promotion to the post of the Private Secretary, hence, approached Central Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 371/HP/2013. The O.A. was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. A direction was rendered to the petitioner -Department to consider the case of the respondent for the post of private secretary by treating the relevant point as unreserved, if found fit.

(3.) THE judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, under challenge before this Court, would warrant interference only in case it is manifest on its plain reading that the view, taken by it, is un -reasonable as well as perverse. A circumspect perusal of and analysis of the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, under challenge before this Court, brings forth the fact that its findings while ultimately rendering relief to the respondent, inasmuch, as, the petitioner -department being directed to consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of private secretary by treating the relevant point as un -reserved, hence, denying the benefit of reservation in promotion with consequential seniority to respondent No. 5, are anvilled upon a proper appraisal of the factual matrix, as well as, an appropriate application of the apposite case law to it, inasmuch, as, (a) it having, on an analysis on the principles laid down in M. Nagraj vs. Union of India etc., 2007(4) SCT 664, wherein it has been mandated that it would be mandatory on the part of the State Government to undertake proper exercise in case any rule was required to be framed by it to extend the benefit of enabling provision in the Constitution by way of 77th and 85th amendment i.e. for reservation in promotion with consequential seniority; (b) in the face of, hence, a mandatory obligation having been cast upon the respective department of the Government before extending the benefit of reservation and promotion with consequential benefit to undertake the proper exercise and it being manifested from the available material on record that uncontrovertibly no such contemplated exercise was undertaken by the petitioner -department within the parameters of the mandate comprised in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, aforesaid, as such, in absence thereof, the view, as adopted by the Central Administrative Tribunal while rendering a direction to the petitioner -department for considering the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of private secretary by treating the relevant point as un -reserved, was both a tenable, warranted as well as a sustainable view. Obviously, it is not permeated with the vice of perversity or absurdity nor is an unreasonable view. Consequently, it necessitates reverence.