Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi MA 1597/2013, MA 1723/2013, MA 1993/2013 and MA 1994/2013 in OA 2009/2013 Hon#ble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Hon#ble Shri V. N. Gaur, Member (A) Order reserved on 29.08.2013 Order pronounced on 05.09.2013 In the matter of Vijender Singh & Others # Applicants (By Advocate: Sh. M.K.Bhardwaj) Versus GNCT of Delhi & Others # Respondents (By Advocate: Shri N.K.Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat for official respondents, Shri Ajesh Luthra and Shri A.K.Singh for private respondents) O R D E R (on Interim Relief) By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) MA 1597/2013: MA 1597/2013 has been filed under Rule 4(5)(a) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking to file a single OA by all the applicants, is allowed, in the circumstances and since the cause of action is one and the same for all the applicants. MA 1993/2013: This MA filed by Shri Praveen Kumar Yadav, Shri Ajay Singh Negi and Shri Sanjay Kumar, seeking to implead them as Respondents No.3 to 5 has already been allowed vide Order dated 12.08.2013. MA 1723/2013: This MA, filed by one Shri Raman Kumar Singh seeking to implead him as party Respondent No.6, has already been allowed vide Order dated 24.08.2013. The brief facts of the case are that the original applicants, who are five in number, filed the present OA, by submitting that they are presently working as Sub Inspectors in Delhi Police and are fully qualified and eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector, and that the respondents instead of effecting promotions to the post of Inspectors as per the seniority, trying to apply the rule of reservations to SC/ST category candidates in the matter of promotions as Inspectors against to the settled principles of law as held by the Hon#ble Apex Court in M.Nagaraj v. Union of India & Others, (2006) 8 SCC 212. This Tribunal by its Order dated 11.06.2013, having found prima-facie case, and by following the orders issued in identical matters, by way of an ad interim measure restrained the official respondents for making further promotions till the next date of hearing. The newly impleaded 6th Respondent submits that his case was considered by the DPC for the year 2012, and as departmental proceedings were pending against him at that relevant time, his result was kept in a sealed cover. Now, even after the said departmental proceedings came to an end, the request of the 6th Respondent, for opening the said sealed cover and to declare his results, was rejected by the official respondents vide Order dated 01.07.2013 on the ground that this Tribunal by its Order dated 11.06.2013 in OA No.2009/2013 restrained them from making further promotions pending the OA. It is further submitted that his case was considered by the DPC for the year 2012 and whereas the subject matter of the OA No.2009/2013 pertains to the DPC for the year 2013, and in no way his case is relevant to the subject matter of the present OA, and the same was also not questioned in any manner in this OA, and accordingly, he orally prayed for clarifying/modifying the Order dated 11.06.2013 (supra) to the effect that the same is not applicable to his case, and that the respondents are free to take appropriate action in respect of 2012 DPC results. The learned counsel for the applicants in the OA and the learned counsel for the official respondents have not disputed the said facts as narrated by the learned counsel for the 6th Respondent and do not object for such a clarification. Accordingly, it is clarified that the interim order dated 11.06.2013, is not applicable to the DPC for promotion to the post of Inspectors for the year 2012 and that the official respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders in respect of the promotion of the 6th Respondent, in accordance with rules/law. MA 1994/2013: This MA has been filed by newly impleaded Respondents No.3 to 5 seeking to vacate/modify the interim order dated 11.06.2013 passed by this Tribunal in aforesaid OA No.2009/2013. It is their contention that they have been placed much above in the seniority list of Sub Inspectors (Executive) than the applicants in the OA and belongs to Unreserved/OBC categories, and even if the official respondents apply the rule of reservation, for promotion to the post of Inspectors, they would be promoted to the said post, in view of their seniority and in view of the availability of sufficient vacancies. They further submit irrespective of the result of the OA, they would be promoted as they are fully qualified, eligible and senior enough. Accordingly, they pray that the interim order dated 11.06.2013 may be modified/vacated by directing the official respondents to effect promotions to the post of Inspector (Executive) to the extent of Unreserved vacancies. The learned counsel for the applicants in the OA vehemently opposed the vacation/modification of the interim order dated 11.06.2013 and submits that when the official respondents trying to apply the rule of reservation in promotion, as against to the law laid down by the Hon#ble Apex Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India & Others (supra), in its true letter and spirit, unless this Tribunal finally dispose of the OA, the interim Order dated 11.06.2013 cannot be modified or vacated. He further submits that if the official respondents are permitted to make piece meal promotions, without deciding the OA, the applicants# interests would be affected adversely/severely. We find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants and accordingly we do not intend to interfere with the interim Order dated 11.06.2013 at this stage. However, in the circumstances, we are of the view that the main OA itself is to be decided at an early date. In view of the aforesaid discussion, list the OA on 18.09.2013 for final hearing. List the MA 1994/2013 also along with the OA. In the meanwhile, all the private respondents may file their counters, if any, to the main OA. (V. N. Gaur) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /nsnrvak/
Posted on: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 10:59:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015