UNION OF INDIA Vs. ASIT KR. PAUL
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
UNION OF INDIA
Asit Kr. Paul
Click here to view full judgement.
MANOJIT BHUYAN -
(1.) Heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) The matter pertains to grant of promotion to the respondent herein to the post of Office Superintendent, which has been directed to be done by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in the Original Application instituted by the respondent herein.
(3.) The respondent is an Upper Division Clerk in the Office of the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Guwahati Electrical Division-I, Central Public Works Department (CPWD). An Office Memorandum dated 10.01.2013 was issued inviting applications from Upper Division Clerks having five years service in the cadre as on 15.02.2013 for filling up the vacancies in the grade of Office Superintendent through Departmental Qualifying/Competitive Examination. Under the CPWD Manual the criteria for promotion to Head Clerk/Office Superintendent is confined to Upper Division Clerks having five years regular service in the grade. The vacancies are to be filled up in the ratio of 50% through regular service in the grade and 50% on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. In other words, it is to be in the ratio of 50% on Merit Quota and 50% on Seniority Quota. The respondent had responded to the advertisement vying for promotion under Merit Quota. Result of the examination was declared on 13.11.2013 and under Merit Quota the name of the respondent figured at serial no. 4 of the Waiting List. Names of 14 (fourteen) candidates found place in the main list under Merit Quota. By Office Order dated 21.03.2014 as many as 34 (thirty four) candidates were promoted to the post of Office Superintendent, which included the 14 (fourteen) candidates under the Merit Quota. The said Office Order dated 21.03.2014 came to be challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal on the primary ground that the same was in violation of the criteria laid down in the CPWD Manual which prescribed promotion in the ratio of 50% through regular service and balance 50% on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. As the selection exercise was carried out to fill up 34 vacancies in the grade of Head Clerk/Office Superintendent, there were 17 (50%) clear vacant posts to be filled up from the list under merit quota. The respondent being the 17th candidate under the Merit Quota List (the incumbent at serial no. 6 of the main list under Merit Quota i.e. Sri Kamal Rudra Paul not having accepted the offer of appointment), he ought to have been appointed accordingly, following the quota percentage prescribed in the CPWD Manual.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.