O.A. No. 339 of 1998. Case: Umesh Joshi Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. No. 339 of 1998
CounselFor Appellant: Rajendra Soni, P.S. Asopa and Ashish Joshi, Advs. and For Respondents: V.S. Gurjar, U.D. Sharma, L.N. Boss and A.K. Bhandari, Advs.
JudgesS.K. Agarwal (J) and N.P. Nawani (A), Members
IssueService Law
Judgement DateJanuary 07, 2000
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

N.P. Nawani, Member (A)

  1. These Original Applications raise similar question of law and seek similar relief and have accordingly been heard together and are proposed to be disposed of through this common order. For the sake of convenience, reference has been made to the case file of Shri Umesh Joshi i.e. OA No. 339/1998.

  2. The relief sought by the applicants is essentially to quash the impugned orders dated 24.8.1998 and 31.3.1998 in so far as these concern the determination of vacancies in the promotion quota of IPS, Rajasthan cadre for the period 1995-96 to 1998 and selection of persons junior to the applicants.

  3. The case of the applicants is that it was incorrect for the respondents to have determined Nil vacancies for the year 1995-96 and 9 vacancies for the year 1998 (there being no dispute about 2 vacancies for 1996-97), whereas according to them as per details given in their pleadings, vacancies should be 2 for 1995-96, 2 for 1996-97, 6 for the period 1.4.1997 to 31.12.1997 of the financial year 1997-98 and 3 as on 1.1.1998 for the calendar year 1998 under the provisions of the amended Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (for short, Promotions Regulations) brought into force w.e.f. 1.1.1998; that by clubbing the vacancies on 1.1.1998 and by enlarging the zone of consideration as per details given in their applications, the respondents have illegally selected persons junior to them and that the Selection Committee ought to meet for preparing yearwise select lists for vacancies of each of the year and consider eligible persons yearwise separately but the respondents by clubbing the vacancies are making non-eligible officers eligible, thereby, adversely effecting the chances of the applicants which is violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has also been averred that the service record of the applicants is totally neat and clean throughout, in fact their work was appreciated from time to time and there were no reasons for they being not selected for promotion to IPS whereas their juniors have been so selected.

  4. Notices were sent to all the respondents and replies have been filed. The applicants have also filed a rejoinder to the reply made by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 while an additional reply has also been filed by respondent No. 2. These replies/rejoinder/additional reply have been taken on record and perused.

  5. Briefly stated, the respondents in their replies have vehemently rebutted the averments made by the applicants. They have explained as to how the two vacancies claimed by the applicants for being considered for 1995-96 have actually to be taken into consideration for 1994-95. The Selection Committee had met on 24.4.1995 and in view of the statutory provisions requiring vacancies anticipated within the ensuing 12 months i.e. within 23.4.1996, considered these two vacancies. It was also argued that the vacancies occurring during the truncated period of 1.4.1997 to 31.12.1997 could not be considered as vacancies occurring in the financial year starting from 1.4.1997 and ending on 31.3.1998, in view of the pre-amended Regulations not being applicable to one part of financial year i.e. between 1.1.1998 to 31.3.1998 and the amended Regulations in the meantime coming into force w.e.f. 1.1.1998. They have, therefore, contended that everything i.e. vacancy determination, followed by preparation of the zone of consideration and selection by the Selection Commitee, has been done strictly as per the prevailing statutory provisions and the applicants were duly considered but they being found not more meritorious than their juniors cannot give them any right to be taken on the select list.

  6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the material on record carefully.

  7. There is a development, we have to take note of before we can adjudicate on the reliefs sought by the applicants. We have been told at the Bar that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT