Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. - (1.) RESPONDENTS No. 2 and 3 (original applicants), joined the services of the petitioner -Department on 04.01.1984 and 08.05.1991 in the capacity of Peon and Chowkidar, in Class -IV, respectively.
(2.) IT is the common case of the parties that as per the Military Engineer Services (Assistant, Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Clerk) Recruitment Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'), the avenue of promotion is to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC), where 10% vacancies are to be filled in from Group 'D' non -industrial employee having rendered minimum of 5 years service with requisite educational qualifications and typing limit of not less than 30 words per minute. The mode of appointment is "Selection -cum -Seniority". It is the case of respondents No. 2 and 3 that the petitioners used to hold a written test despite absence of provision for such test. The said two respondents appeared in the written test in December 2000 and were declared as "passed". They were, however, not promoted for the reason that the number of vacancies for the post of LDC were actually six in the General Category and the said two respondents did not figure in the merit, being at Sr. No. 8 and 16, respectively. It appears that the respondents did not take the examination thereafter in the year 2004 -2005 (no examination having been held from 2001 to 2003) but filed OA in the year 2004 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, making a grievance of the methodology of holding a test. In the alternative, their plea was that they should be promoted on the basis of the result of test of year 2000 qua subsequent vacancies.
(3.) THE OA was resisted by the petitioners before us. It is their say that the selection on merit was based on instructions in the Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) dated 04.08.19997. A panel used to be prepared for a particular year which stood cancelled after filling up all the vacancies existing in that year. It is in the year 1999 that fresh recruitment rules for the post of LDC were issued by way of selection -cum -seniority and fresh SOP was issued on 17.07.2004. The delay in holding the examination arose on account of the time period spent in consultation for issuing the fresh SOP. The Tribunal, however, found that as per the rules 10% promotions from Group 'D' employees had to be made and no other method was prescribed. Simultaneously, it was observed that the Tribunal would not like to unsettle the things already settled four years back on the basis of 2000 examination. No DPC had been held for the subsequent years and since there was no requirement to hold the written test, a direction was issued that the case of respondents No. 2 and 3 be considered for promotion to the post of LDC under the 10% quota. This order was passed on 05.08.2005, directing the needful to be done without the requirement of a fresh written test.;