VIJAY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIJAY Kumar, the petitioner herein, who was appointed as Assistant (General) in the Central Mining Research Station in handicapped quota, sent a representation on 20.09.2002 seeking for the promotion as a Section Officer (General) in the reservation seat allotted to handicapped quota. The authorities -respondents rejected the claim by the order dated 20.10.2003 on the ground that the reservation quota for handicapped would not apply in promotions to Group 'A' and Group 'B' posts. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 370 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which, in turn, dismissed the same on 14.02.2006. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has asked for two prayers:

(3.) MRS . Ritu Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner would make the following contentions: The petitioner has been claiming the benefit of reservation in promotion as per Corrigendum dated 16.01.1998, which prescribes for grant of benefit of reservation in promotion to the physically handicapped persons in all groups of services where element of direct recruitment does not exceed 75%. The petitioner has been fully eligible for being promoted to the next higher post of Section Officer. The finding given by the Central Administrative Tribunal relying upon the office memorandum dated 05.11.2001 is wrong since the petitioner claims for benefit of reservation in promotion as per Corrigendum dated 16.01.1998 which prescribes for grant of benefit of reservation in promotion to physically handicapped persons in all groups of services including Group 'C' and Group 'D'. If the office memorandum dated 16.01.1998 was meant for only Group 'A' and Group 'B' posts, there was no need for making the reservation for promotion to all grades of services as mentioned in office memorandum dated 16.01.1998. The office memorandum dated 05.11.2001 cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner for the reason that at the relevant time, the same was not existent, i.e., in the year 1998 when the petitioner had completed nine years of service on the post of Assistant. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for by him.