Dr. Pawan Kumar Tomar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1917 Del

JUDGMENT

Khan, J.

1. Petitioners are Section Officers in Horticulture Wing of CPWD. They want Respondents to refer some ten ten posts of Assistant Director (Horticulture) in direct recruitment quota to UPSC for being filled up. They approached Tribunal of this, but their plea was all along rejected. Hence this petition.

2. L/C for petitioner Mr. Pattjoshi was heard on last date but he did not appear today to support his contentions. We all the same deemed it proper to deal with the matter to end the controversy for good.

3. It all seems to have started way back in 1995 when Section Officers Association filed OA 1388/93 and asked for withholding direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Director on the basis of unamended rules then. Respondents concealed this when their counsel made a statement that the post would not be filled up under those rules. This OA was accordingly disposed of by order dated 11.11.96 and consequently posts have remained unfilled ever since.

4. Petitioner followed it up by filling OA 341/98 asking for filling up of the available posts in direct recruitment quota. Their OA was, however, dismissed by order dated 12.2.98 by tribunal on the ground that they had no right to ask for this and that they only enjoyed a right of consideration after the posts would be notified. They thereafter filed CWP 1020/98 before this court which was disposed of by order dated 29.9.99 asking them to approach the tribunal again for the purpose. They then filed second OA 2281/99 and again asked for reference of available posts to UPSC for being filled up. This was opposed by respondents on the ground that they were committed to fill up the posts under the amended rules which were likely to take some time. Tribunal accordingly dismissed their OA again holding that prayed for direction to fill up available posts by direct recruitment could not be given to Respondents at the instance of petitioners. Hence this petition. We were informed that respondents had amended the rules prescribing a ratio of 1 (DR) : 10 (Promotion) for filling up of the post on this basis had allotted two posts for direct recruitment quota which were referred to UPSC for selection/appointment. This should have clinched the issue but for petitioners shying away from facing the reality.

5. We are not able to appreciate how petitioners could claim any locus to ask Respondents to refer any available posts for direct recruitment. Even if they enjoyed one, their grievance stands redressed with two posts having been made available for direct recruitment in which they could seek consideration. Their counsel contended on the last date that number of posts was to be worked out under the ratio of old rules so that more posts would have become available. This, in our view, looses sight and track of Tribunal order passed in OA 1388/93 wherein it was agreed that post would not be filled up under the old rules. This apart, petitioners have not set up any such case alleging any imbalance or disparity in promotion and direct recruitment quotas in their OA. Nor have they challenged the new rules prescribing the new ration. All these pleas and contentions, therefore, become untenable and have to be rejected.

6. This petition accordingly fails and its dismissed.