Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 26882 and 26885 of 2016 as according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the issue involved in both these petitions is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.26882 of 2016.
(2.) In CWP No.26882 of 2016, the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 30.9.2016, Annexure P.8 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") whereby the original application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has been allowed and the notification dated 15.7.2015 has been quashed to the extent of permitting reservation in promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (Telecom) [(SDE(T)] by LDCE and on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The petitioners were directed not to apply reservation in promotion by LDCE or on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness.
(3.) A few facts relevant for the d ecision of the controversy involved as narrated in CWP No.26882 of 2016 may be noticed. The post of SDE is governed by the statutory rules called Sub Divisional Engineer(Telecom) Recruitment Rules, 2002 as amended in 2007 (in short, "the Rules"). The rules provide for filling up the posts of SDE by two sources i.e. 67% by JTOS (Telecom) with three years' service in the grade under seniority- cum-fitness and 33% by LDCE from officers (Telecom) with three years service in the grade. Vide notice dated 10.2.2015, BSNL decided to hold DPC for promotion to the grade of SDE (Telecom) under 67% quota. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed original application challenging the notice dated 10.2.2015 issued by petitioner No.1 and sought directions to the petitioners to hold DPC for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (T) under 67% quota without applying the reservation. Vide order dated 21.7.2015, the Tribunal passed the interim order vide which the petitioners were restrained from convening a DPC meeting to make promotion to the post of SDE under 67% quota of promotion on the basis of merit seniority-cum-fitness without following the mandate given by the Apex Court in M.Nagaraj and others Vs. Union of India and others, 2011 1 SCC 467. The petitioners filed written statement to the original application taking various pleas and objections. Vide order dated 31.3.2016, the Tribunal dismissed the application for non prosecution. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed application before the Tribunal for restoration of the original application which was allowed and the original application was restored vide order dated 7.4.2016. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also filed application before the Tribunal for clubbing their case with the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others which was also allowed. On 18.5.2016, when the original application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 came up for hearing, the Tribunal in Shiv Kumar's case (supra) modified the order dated 29.5.2015 to the extent that BSNL may declare the result of the examination which had been conducted and may take consequential steps but shall not make any actual promotions. Against the interim order dated 18.5.2016, the petitioners approached this court through CWP No.17752 of 2016 which was dismissed as infructuous as the final order had been passed by the Tribunal by that time. Vide order dated 30.9.2016, the Tribunal allowed the original application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and notification dated 15.7.2015 had been quashed to the extent of permitting reservation in promotion to the post of SDE(T) by LDCE and on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The petitioners were directed not to apply reservation in promotion by LDCE or on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. Hence the instant petitions by the petitioners.;