TA No. 393/2009 With TA No. 464/2009. Case: 1. Balwant Singh and Others, 2. Rajesh Kumar, 3. Umesh Chandra Sharma, 4. Ramesh Chand, 5. Bhule Ram, 6. Rajveer Vs Delhi Jal Board, Through Its Ceo. Central Administrative Tribunal
Case Number | TA No. 393/2009 With TA No. 464/2009 |
Counsel | G. D. Gupta, Piyush Sharma, Rahul Tyagi, Nidhi Minocha |
Judges | Shanker Raju (Judicial Member) & Dr. Veena Chhotray (Accountant Member) |
Issue | Service Laws |
Judgement Date | November 16, 2009 |
Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
Shanker Raju (Judicial Member), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
On common facts, constituting identical question of law, leads to disposal of these TAs by this common order.
-
Applicants, who were working on promotion as Assistant Fitter, by virtue of this TA, have challenged the respondents office order dated 22.11.2007, whereby promotion order dated 6.8.2007 has been cancelled. By way of interim relief status quo has been directed to be maintained, on the strength of which applicants are working as Assistant Fitters.
-
Applicants, who are beldars in Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking, now Delhi Jal Board, are in the feeder category for the promotional posts of Assistant Fitter, which is a Group C post and as per the recruitment rules, by promotion, selection is made on the result of the trade test in the Fitter grade by a DPC. A circular was issued on 30.8.2005 for filling up the posts of Assistant Fitter on the basis of trade test from amongst the senior employees whose date of appointment was 31.12.1989 or prior. A copy of the circular was put on the office board, as a result of which a DPC had met and on its recommendations relating to those who successfully qualified the trade test, applicants, against total number of 116 posts, have been promoted as Assistant Fitters by an order passed on 6.8.2007.
-
It appears that Union espoused the case and on complaints of beldars regarding irregularities in holding of the test, respondents had held a joint meeting of Union Association on 27.9.2007, where nothing illegal was found with the trade test and the unions have been asked to give solid proof of irregularities in the trade test. Having not produced the solid proof, on the basis of the DPC guidelines of DoP&T dated 6.1.2006, on the ground that the zone of consideration has been widened beyond the permissible limits and promotions have been cancelled even without affording a reasonable opportunity to show cause.
-
Learned Senior Counsel Shri G.D. Gupta appearing along with Shri Piyush Sharma contended that the selection for the posts of Assistant Fitter is not a selection as per the DPC guidelines. It is only a selection on the basis of trade test and whosoever clears the trade test, is declared qualified by the DPC and promoted. It is also stated that it is not in dispute that no seniority list has been issued prior to promotions. In the above view of the matter, learned counsel would contend that...
To continue reading
Request your trial