O. A. No.060/00977/2016. Case: 1. Arun Yadav 2. Vikas Dahiya 3. Sandeep Sharma 4. Virender Rathee Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO. A. No.060/00977/2016
Party Name1. Arun Yadav 2. Vikas Dahiya 3. Sandeep Sharma 4. Virender Rathee Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
JudgesMr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J) and Mr. Uday Kumar Varma, Member (A)
IssueAdministrative Law
Judgement DateNovember 28, 2016
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Order:

Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J), (Chandigarh Bench)

  1. This matter came up for hearing on 25.10.2016 when applicants herein requested for quashing of Annexures A-1 and A-2, whereby respondents have decided not to depute the applicants, who are otherwise eligible, for training for the post of JAO on the pretext that stay has been granted by the Tribunal in O.A. No.060/00864/2016 titled Manoj Sheokand & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.. Thereafter, when matter came up for hearing on 24.11.2016, following order was passed:-

  2. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file written statement. Though counsel for the applicant does not object to the request, however, he stated that the applicants were deputed on training which was scheduled to start on 24.10.2016 however, vide order dated 21.10.2016, respondents have taken a view not to depute candidates on training till the interim order passed by this Court in O.A. No.060/0864/2016 Manoj Sheokand & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. is vacated, wherein, this court has directed respondents not to allow reservation in promotion. He further drew attention to advice tendered by counsel that respondents cannot depute persons on training by giving them benefit of reservation in promotion.

  3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that till respondents carry out the necessary exercise as directed in the case of M. Nagraj, they cannot provide reservation by deputing reserved category candidates for training. However, they are also restraining general category candidates from going on training without any logic and reason. He, therefore, prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to depute the applicants on training of JAO.

  4. On this, Sh. D. R. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents seeks two days time to have instructions from the concerned quarter.

  5. List on 28.11.2016.

  6. By order dated 24.11.2016, it was clarified that issue in case of Manoj Sheokand (supra) is with regard to reservation in promotion and considering requirement of mandate as directed in the case of M. Nagraj, respondents were directed not to allow reservation in promotion but there is not even a whisper in the order dated 24.11.2016 not to promote other candidates to higher post as per their merit. Perusal of Annexure A-1 suggests that respondents have decided not to depute the applicants for training because stay is there despite we have clarified the position in our order dated 24.11.2016.

  7. Learned counsel for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial