- (1.) THESE two petitions have been filed by drivers employed in the Central Bureau of Investigation. The petitioners filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal when they were denied the appointment of participating in the selection for promotion on the post of Head Constables in the Executive Cadre. The ground of such denial was that since the petitioners belong to the Motor Transport Cadre, therefore, they stand excluded for consideration on the post of Head Constable in the Executive Cadre.
(2.) THE petitioners took a plea that they were appointed in the executive cadre as Constables and that they had never opted to go into the Motor Transport Cadre which was formed later on. They, therefore, pleaded that this denial of an opportunity to seek promotion is arbitrary and contrary to the rules.
(3.) THE respondent -C.B.I. took a stand that as a matter of fact the cadre formation of the Motor Transport Section took place for which options were invited and that the petitioners willingly on their own participated in the Motor Trade Test that was conducted whereafter they were placed in the said category. Consequently, it was not open to them to question their status in the Motor Transport Cadre. The Tribunal after having examined the facts came to the conclusion that the petitioners had never objected to their names appearing in the list of Motor Transport Cadre employees and in the year 2000, after almost five years of the formation of the Cadre, they had raised this issue at the time of promotion which was impermissible. The Tribunal further held that the rules provide only for direct recruitment and in the case of drivers it is a matter of screening only. The stand taken in the counter affidavit was that the petitioners had already opted to remain in the Motor Transport Cadre and therefore they had no claim left in the executive cadre. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said denial was contrary to the record inasmuch as the petitioners had specifically vide their representation dated 2.2.1996 refused to join the cadre of Motor Transport. The aforesaid letter/representation filed by the petitioners is stated to have been forwarded to the Head Office on 6.2.1996 for consideration. The respondents however appear to have taken a stand that the Motor Trade Test was conducted in which the petitioners had voluntarily participated whereafter the list was drawn up and for this reliance has been placed by Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava on the document dated 6.2.1996 which is a fax message indicating formation of the Motor Transport Cadre in which the name of both the petitioners find place at Serial Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. On the strength of this document it is urged that the petitioners will be presumed to have exercised their option for remaining in the Motor Transport Cadre as they participated in the Motor Trade Test where they were found eligible by a duly constituted committee. It is therefore submitted that the list which was prepared and circulated clearly indicates the willingness of the petitioners. Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava has further invited the attention of the Court that this selection had been preceded by a letter which was circulated on 4.7.1995 whereby the list of Constables, who according to the respondents, had opted for being included in the cadre where the name of both the petitioners find place. He contends that the petitioners never chose to challenge their such placement and in the circumstances the claim that was filed at the stage of promotion of Head Constables almost after four years was not entertainable. Consequently, even otherwise, the Tribunal was justified in proceeding to reject the claim petitions of the petitioners.;