The Delhi High Court has emphasised the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedure for promotions under the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination quota.
The High Court has underscored that promotions through the LDCE quota must be carried out in accordance with the established guidelines and steps outlined in the official regulations.
Brief Facts:
Based on the records, prior to 2003, the selection criteria for the Office Superintendent Grade-II (hereinafter referred to as “OS Grade-II”) in the Indian Railways involved 100% promotion from the position of Head Clerk.
However, with the implementation of a cadre restructuring scheme in 2003, the selection criteria for the OS Grade-II cadre changed. It was reorganised to include 20% of the posts to be filled through the Direct Recruitment quota, with the remaining 80% filled through promotional quota from the lower grade Clerk. Subsequently, the element of 20% Direct Recruitment was replaced by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as “LDCE”) in 2005.
On July 15, 2007, Northern Railway issued a notification for the selection of OS Grade-II under the 20% LDCE quota in the Headquarter Office in New Delhi. However, the selection process did not take place. Another notification was issued for the selection of OS Grade-II under the 20% LDCE quota, specifically for serving graduates working as Head Clerk, Sr. Clerk, and Clerk, with the required experience. The written test was conducted, and a provisional panel of successful candidates was issued. The candidates on the board were informed and, upon completing the necessary training, they were posted in various departments according to the vacancy position and assigned seniority from the date of joining as OS Grade-II.
Subsequently, the 38 candidates from the panel, including the Petitioners, before the Tribunal, sought the benefits of promotion to OS Grade II. It was argued that the 20% posts were created due to the restructuring, which initially constituted the Direct Recruitment quota in OS Grade-II and was later replaced by the LDCE quota as per the Board's letter. It was claimed that their promotions were delayed as a result. The Tribunal adjourned the matter indefinitely to await the outcome of a writ petition filed against the Tribunal's judgement in the case of Sunder Singh v. Union of India. Hence, the present petitions.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
It was argued that the delay in initiating the selection process under the LDCE quota, which was finalised only in December 2011, amounts to discriminatory treatment towards those eligible under the 20% quota.
It was claimed that the failure to hold the selection under the LDCE quota while continuing promotions under the 80% promotion quota in the same cadre adversely affects their seniority and promotional opportunities for higher grades.
Contentions of the Respondents:
it was asserted that many of the Petitioners were ineligible for consideration for the post of OS Grade-II on November 2, 2003, as they lacked the required experience. Further, it was contended that the petitioners were granted promotion in 2011 through the selection process under the LDCE quota, and therefore, it cannot be related back to 2003 as requested by the petitioners.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted that the circular provides a procedure for promotions under the LDCE quota, which includes a written examination and assessment of service records. This procedure must be followed before granting promotions. A three-month training and examination are required for individuals selected under the LDCE quota.
The Court further noted that since the Petitioners did not challenge the cancellation of the 2007 selection process, they cannot claim promotions from a date earlier than their selection in 2011. It was opined that promotions under the LDCE quota require a specific process and cannot be equated with promotions under the 80% quota.
The decision of the Court:
Accordingly, The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Hemlata Mathur and Ors. v Union of India and Ors.
Case No.: Writ petition Civil 5960 of 2020
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Mr. Nishant Bahuguna, Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Mr. Gauraan
Advocates for Respondents: Adv. Mr. K.D. Sharma
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com :
Picture Source :
