Delhi High Court
Shri Lal Chand Jain And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 2 February, 2006
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. In these proceedings the promotion of respondent Nos. 3 to 19 by the order dated 25.7.1979, to the post of Traffic Inspector have been challenged.
2. The petitioners were, at relevant time, working as Assistant Traffic Inspector having been promoted to that post on different dates in the year 1970 and 1972. The respondent Nos. 3 to 19 were apparently promoted after petitioners and were their juniors in the cadre of Assistant Traffic Inspector.
3. The principal ground for challenging the promotion of the respondent Nos. 3 to 19 is that in the absence of enabling provision to earmark reservations in promotional vacancies, the benefits granted to said respondents is contrary to the Regulation of DTC and violating to Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.
4. Rule was issued on 4.9.1979; during the pendency of proceedings, the court had directed that the promotions in question would be subject to the out come of these proceedings. Despite repeated notices having been served to the petitioners as well as their counsel, there was no appearance. On 15.12.2003, there was appearance on behalf of petitioners. Thereafter notices were served to counsel, but there has been default on the part of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for respondents relies upon the averments in the counter affidavit to say that the issue of reservations was dealt with by Office Order No. 45 dated 15.4.1959 by which the Delhi Transport Committee resolved to extend the policy in the Central Govt Officers vis-a-vis reservation of vacancies. The relevant portion of the said decision is reduced as under:-
12. In regard to the reservation of vacancies for and recruitment/ promotion of scheduled castes/tribes candidates, exactly the same rules and practice as are in force from time to time under the Government of India will be followed.
6. Learned counsel has pointed out that DTC by its resolution No. 425 dated 29.7.1975 approved the proposal to earmark 15% of the vacancies for Scheduled Castes candidates and 7.5% of the vacancies for Scheduled Tribes candidates respectively in promotional vacancies. By clause 5 of the Delhi Road Transport Authority conditions of appointment and service regulation 52 as also an agreement/settlement entered into with Union, provision was made for selection on the basis of seniority and merit in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Candidates for departmental promotions. This decision was communicated to all the concerned employees by notice dated 10.10.1975.
7.The counter affidavit also avers that by notice dated 17-1-1979, the decision of the Board of DTC (which held its meeting on 14.12.1978 for implementation of its policy of reservation) was given publicity. This decision apparently was to the effect that the policy would be made effective from 27-11-1972 in respect of the vacancies.
8. Learned counsel submitted that there is no challenge to the decision of the court as well as policies which had crystallized into condition of service of existing employees. Hence the grievance in these proceedings that there could be no reservation and promotion, was not tenable.
9. The respondent has also filed an additional pleading disclosing that two of the petitioners have retired during the pendency of the cases and one namely the petitioners, has died.
10. The above narrative shows that the policy of reservation was formulated and adopted by the respondent. There is no challenge to the policy, contained in the circulars and resolution of the Board of DTC. It is settled law that in the absence of challenge to a binding norm (be it a rule, provision of law, or executive policy) the action taken in implementation of such policy cannot be ipso facto be characterized as arbitrary. The Petition contains no other ground of challenge, except the assertion that reservation, in the absence of a provision, is impermissible.
11. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the petitions, which are dismissed. Rule discharged.
