M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) VIJAY Kumar, the petitioner herein, who was appointed as Assistant (General) in the Central Mining Research Station in handicapped quota, sent a representation on 20.09.2002 seeking for the promotion as a Section Officer (General) in the reservation seat allotted to handicapped quota. The authorities -respondents rejected the claim by the order dated 20.10.2003 on the ground that the reservation quota for handicapped would not apply in promotions to Group 'A' and Group 'B' posts. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 370 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which, in turn, dismissed the same on 14.02.2006. Hence, this writ petition.
(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has asked for two prayers: (i) To set aside the order dated 14.02.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing his application claiming for promotion; (ii) To issue a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Section Officer (General) under physically handicapped quota with effect from 1998. The brief facts, which are required for disposal of this writ petition, are as follows: (i) The petitioner is a physically handicapped person. (ii) An advertisement was issued on 11.04.1987 inviting the application for the post of Assistant (General) in the Central Mining Research Station. (iii) The petitioner applied for the same. He attended the interview. The Medical Board granted him a certificate declaring him to be a handicapped. (iv) On that basis, by the letter dated 28.11.1988, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant (General) in the Central Mining Research Station. (v) He joined duty on 26.04.1989. (vi) On 16.01.1998 the Government of India issued a Corrigendum intimating the departments that the policy of reservation for Scheduled Casts/Scheduled Tribes including physically handicapped is applicable to all grades of services. (vii) On 24.08.1998 also the Department of Personnel and Training clarified the procedure for reservation policy. Despite this, petitioner being handicapped was not considered for promotion. (viii) The petitioner filed several representations before the authorities requesting them to place his case before the Departmental Promotion Committee to consider his case for due promotion on the quota of physically handicapped. (ix) On 20.12.2001, the petitioner received a letter to the effect that his case is being considered by the duly constituted committee. However, no step was taken to promote him. (x) Again, on 20.09.2002, petitioner sent a representation reminding for his due promotion on reservation quota. There was no response. Therefore, the petitioner moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 176 of 2003 for the necessary reliefs. (xi) By ah order dated 06.07.2003 the Tribunal directed the respondents to look into the matter and dispose of the pending representation dated 20.09.2002 sent by the petitioner by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. (xii) As directed, the petitioner filed a detailed representation along with a copy of the order before the respondents. (xiii) Thereafter the petitioner received the impugned office memorandum dated 20.10.2003 passed by the respondent rejecting the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that reservation in promotions to the persons with disabilities to Group 'A' and Group 'B' posts is not admissible and it is limited to Group 'D' and Group 'C' posts alone and the post of Section Officer, which the petitioner claims to be promoted, has been classified as Group 'B' post and as such, the benefit of reservation to persons with disabilities for promotion to these posts is not admissible. (xiv) Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a petition in O.A. No. 370 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing the said order dated 20.10.2003 passed by the authorities rejecting his claim and also for a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Section Officer (General) in physically handicapped quota with effect from 1998. (xv) This case was contested by the respondents before the Tribunal contending that the post of Section Officer, to which the claim has been made for promotion, has been classified as Group 'B' post and, as such, the benefit of reservation to the persons with physical disabilities to the said post is not admissible. (xvi) Rejecting the case of the petitioner, the Tribunal upheld the contention of the respondents and gave a finding that the petitioner is not entitled for promotion as the post, he claimed for promotion, is in the Group 'B' and the reservation policy would apply 10 Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts alone and not to Group 'A' and Group 'B' posts. (xvii) Aggrieved by that the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(3.) MRS . Ritu Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner would make the following contentions: The petitioner has been claiming the benefit of reservation in promotion as per Corrigendum dated 16.01.1998, which prescribes for grant of benefit of reservation in promotion to the physically handicapped persons in all groups of services where element of direct recruitment does not exceed 75%. The petitioner has been fully eligible for being promoted to the next higher post of Section Officer. The finding given by the Central Administrative Tribunal relying upon the office memorandum dated 05.11.2001 is wrong since the petitioner claims for benefit of reservation in promotion as per Corrigendum dated 16.01.1998 which prescribes for grant of benefit of reservation in promotion to physically handicapped persons in all groups of services including Group 'C' and Group 'D'. If the office memorandum dated 16.01.1998 was meant for only Group 'A' and Group 'B' posts, there was no need for making the reservation for promotion to all grades of services as mentioned in office memorandum dated 16.01.1998. The office memorandum dated 05.11.2001 cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner for the reason that at the relevant time, the same was not existent, i.e., in the year 1998 when the petitioner had completed nine years of service on the post of Assistant. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for by him.;