Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Smt. Dropadi Seth on 5 April, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 18765-67/2005
% Date of Decision: 05.04.2011
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. R.V. Sinha with Mr. A.S.
Singh, Advocates
versus
SMT. DROPADI SETH ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No
ANIL KUMAR, J.
The petitioners - Union of India through Secretary, Ministry
of Finance, Department of Revenue & Ors. have challenged the
order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A. No. 1952/2003 titled as Smt.
Dropadi Seth v Union of India & Ors. whereby the Tribunal had
directed the petitioner to consider the applicant's claim for benefit
of reservation for physically handicapped persons on the post of
Assistant Director (Official Language) - Group 'B', by passing a
detailed and speaking order within a period of one month from the
date of availability of recommendations of UPSC. It was further
ordered that the respondent shall be allowed to hold the post of
Assistant Director (Official Language) on the basis of the
arrangement existing on that date.
The petitioners have also challenged the order dated
23.03.2005 passed in R.A. No. 19/2005 in O.A. No. 1952/2003
whereby it was clarified that the time limit of one month will be
applicable from the date of communication of the order passed in
the review application.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is
that there is no reservation to the physically handicapped persons
in Group 'A' and Group 'B' posts and reliance has been placed on
DOP&T O.M. No. 36035/4/2003-Estt. (Res.), dated 08.07.2003
stipulating that reservation for the persons with disabilities is
available in case of direct recruitment to identified Groups 'A', 'B',
'C' and 'D' posts and also in cases of promotion when promotions
are made within Group 'D', from Group 'D' to Group 'C' and within
Group 'C' posts. It is, thus, contended that no reservation on
account of physical handicap is available for promotion to Group
'A' and Group 'B' posts. According to learned counsel for the
petitioner, the promotion of the respondent was in Group 'B'
post.
The learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions,
has contended that the respondent had superannuated on
30.04.2007 and consequently the relief granted to the respondent
has become illusory and it is now only academic.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
same issue is pending adjudication in other petitions which are
pending before this court.
Consequently, the present petition is disposed with the
observation that the findings of the Tribunal in the impugned
order will not be final and will not be a precedent. The relief
granted to the respondent had been stayed by this Court and now
it has become infructuous as the respondent has already
superannuated. Whether there should be reservation or not for
physically handicapped persons in Group 'B' and Group 'A' posts
pursuant to the OMs referred to by the petitioners shall be
decided in appropriate cases.
With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. All
the pending applications are also disposed of. Parties are left to
bear their own costs.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
APRIL 05, 2011
kks
