Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Shobhna Sharma & Ors. on 11 July, 2016
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Dated: 11th July, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 5816/2016
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.
Mimansak Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
SHOBHNA SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CAV. PET.543/2016
Mr. Gupta, Advocate has entered appearance. Accordingly, caveat
petition is disposed of.
CM.APPL 23973/2016(Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5816/2016
1. With the consent of the parties, we have set down the writ petition for
final disposal.
2. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is not
necessary for him to file a counter affidavit.
3. The Union of India is aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2015 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal(hereinafter referred to for short
as „the Tribunal‟) by which the OA filed by the respondents No. 1 to 15
stands allowed.
4. Both the counsel for the parties, at the outset, submit that the Tribunal
has lost sight of the relief which was actually sought by the respondents
(petitioners before the Tribunal). Mr. Gupta also submits that the
Tribunal has not returned any finding on the relief which was actually
sought by the petitioners before the Tribunal.
5. The following facts of the present case are being noticed which are
necessary for disposal.
6. As per the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, a cadre review
was carried out by the petitioner in which the post of Office
Superintendent Grade -II in the Pay Scale of Rs.5500-9000 as well as
Head Clerk in the Pay Scale of Rs.5000-8000 was merged and new post
of Office Superintendent was created in the Pay Band II with Grade Pay
of Rs.4200/-. It is the case of the petitioner that vide OM dated
10.01.2012, the Director General, CPWD instructed that till the
Recruitment Rules for the newly created post of Office Superintendent
were framed, further recruitment would be carried out according to the
existing Recruitment Rules(RRs) for the post of Head Clerk. The posts
were to be filled up by two modes, first by way of seniority and second
by way of limited departmental examination after the merging of the
post of Head Clerk in the newly created post of Office Superintendent.
On 23.07.2012, the petitioner issued a Notification for the purpose of
conducting LDCE for the newly created post of Office Superintendent
as per the Director General, CPWD, OM dated 28.01.1981. It is the
case of the petitioner that this Notification was issued keeping in mind
the anticipated number of vacancies and the result was to be declared
for the qualified candidates but limited number of vacancies had
occurred as on 31st March of that year. It is for this reason that exact
numbers of vacancies were not notified at the time of issuance of the
Notification of the examination. On 08.08.2012, the petitioner issued
the strength of various posts including the Office Superintendent (360
posts) and the cadre strength of Northern Regions was 360, i.e., 60% of
601 posts. On 08/09.12.2012, the petitioner conducted the LDCE
examination where all the respondents herein participated. 47
candidates qualified the examination, the petitioner promoted only 22
candidates. Resultantly, 25 candidates were not promoted, including
the respondents herein. It is also the case of the petitioner that the
respondents feared that the posts of Head Clerk were not filled up as per
the prescribed quota mentioned in the RRs of Head Clerk and thus, the
respondents started seeking information under the Right to Information
Act (RTI Act). While it is the case of the petitioner that necessary
information was supplied, the respondents were dissatisfied and
resultantly they approached the Tribunal.
7. Both the learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the
learned Tribunal has not decided the issue which was raised by the
respondents. Mr. Bhardwaj, counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the entire examination
conducted by the petitioner while no such relief was prayed for by the
respondents. Neither there was any pleading nor any arguments were
addressed by the counsel for the parties. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel
for the respondents submits that the respondents are primarily aggrieved
by the fact that the petitioner had not notified the precise number of
vacancies which were available and this issue has not been decided by
the Tribunal which is also evident by the reading of the order of the
Tribunal, particularly paragraph 36, wherein the Tribunal held both
LDCE 2012 and 2014 examinations to be illegally and wrongly
conducted by the petitioner. In para 36 page 71 of the order, the
Tribunal held as under:
"However, since we lhave held above that in this case both
LDCE 2012 and 2014 had been held illegally and wrongly, we
refrain from determining as to how many vacancies should
have been filled lup on the basis of the two LDCE
examinations, which is, as it is, an administrative task, and
cannot be performed by this Tribunal in the present process of
judicial review."
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given our
thoughtful consideration to the matter.
9. The following reliefs were sought by the respondents in the OA filed
before the Tribunal:
"(i) quash and set aside the impugned communication dated
24.01.2014 (Annexure A-1) and also declared the action
of respondents in not dividing the vacancies of the cadre
of Office Supdt. In accordance with the quota prescribed
as illegal and arbitrary;
(ii) direct the respondents to recalculate the vacancies for the
year 2012-2013 for the quota meant for LDCE and
consider the case of the applicants for promotion based
upon the examination conducted on 08.12.2012 and
09.12.2012 in accordance with the merit position and
grant consequentntial benefits."
10. Upon reading of the impugned order and taking into consideration the
submissions made by the counsel for the parties, we set aside the order
of the Tribunal dated 05.08.2015. As agreed, the matter is remanded
back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the matter as per the
pleadings and relief sought by the respondents herein.
11. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
CM.APPL 23972/2016(stay)
12. Since the instant writ petition stands disposed of, the application is also
disposed of accordingly.
G.S.SISTANI, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
JULY 11, 2016
pst
