Full Text
Translation output
W.P. (C) No.1769-2015 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 1769/2015 & CM APPL. No. 3165-66/2015
MANOHAR LAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashwarya Sinha & Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, Advocates
W.P.(C) 1769/2015 & CM APPL. No. 3165-66/2015
MANOHAR LAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashwarya Sinha & Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, Advocates
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mrs. Bharathi Raju, Central Government Standing Counsel for
R-1 to R-3 Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Advocates for R-4
Through Mrs. Bharathi Raju, Central Government Standing Counsel for
R-1 to R-3 Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Advocates for R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA O R D E R 24.02.2015
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. No. 3165/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA O R D E R 24.02.2015
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. No. 3165/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1769/2015 & CM APPL. No. 3166/2015 (Stay)
Challenge in the present Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India is the impugned order dated 24.12.2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CAT’) in O.A. No.3707/2013
2015:DHC:1768-DB preferred by the petitioner.
Assailing the said order, Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned CAT erred in upholding the validity of OM dated 02.09.2013, which was totally contrary to the
Statutory Rules provided under Indian Foreign Service, Branch
‘B’(Recruitment, Cadre, Seniority and Promotion) Rules, 1964
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘IFSB Rules’). The learned counsel also submits that as per the IFSB Rules, the conduct of the Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination is governed by Rule 12 (3) and the said rule commence with the non-obstante clause thereby conferring an over-riding effect on the Rule 12(3) over Rules 12(1) and (2). The learned counsel also submits that the learned CAT did not appreciate the fact that the petitioner was illegally denied the opportunity to appear in a
Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (in short ‘LDCE’), which was to be conducted by the respondents in terms of the un- amended Rule 12(3) of the IFSB Rules. The learned counsel further submits that by the impugned Circular dated 02.09.2013, only one sub cadre of IFS (B), i.e. Section Officer was permitted to appear in the departmental examination while the similarly placed sub-cadre, i.e.
Private Secretaries belonging to SC/ST categories were excluded. The learned counsel also submits that provision of lateral entry of the petitioner into Grade-I level is stipulated in the Statutory Rules &
Regulations in terms of Rule 12 of IFSB Rules and thus, the statutory right of the petitioner could not be taken away by way of an amendment changing the service condition retrospectively.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by him.
This petitioner is primarily challenging the circular dated
02.09.2013 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of
India vide which he was deprived to appear in the Special Limited
Department Examination for SC/ST Officers which was conducted by the
Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
‘UPSC’) on 26.10.2013 and 27.10.2013 for appointment of the Section
Officers to the post of Under Secretary. As per the respondents, the petitioner who belonged to the Stenographer cadres of the IFS ‘B’ is no longer eligible for promotion to Grade-I of IFS ‘B’ after amendment of the Rules effective from 17.10.2008. Indisputably, prior to this amendment, the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the Grade-I of
IFS ‘B’. It has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lateral entry of Stenographer to the promotion Grade was discontinued in October, 2008 and since the vacancies under consideration was of the select list 2009-2010, therefore, clearly this petitioner was not eligible to be considered for promotion against the vacancy for the said year through Special Limited Department
Examination. The learned Tribunal in the impugned order has also observed that amendment dated 17.10.2008 in Rule 12(1) of the IFSC
Rules has already been upheld in the case of Suresh Kumar v. Union of
India & Ors., O.A No. 2139/2012 decided on 23.10.2013 and this position has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the light of the aforesaid facts we find no justifiable ground to disagree with the reasoning given by the learned CAT holding that the petitioner was ineligible to appear in the Limited Department
Competitive Examination to the post of Under Secretary for the vacancies for the year 2009-2010, after the rules were amended in the year 2008.
There is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. I.S.MEHTA, J.
FEBRUARY 24, 2015 v
Challenge in the present Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India is the impugned order dated 24.12.2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CAT’) in O.A. No.3707/2013
2015:DHC:1768-DB preferred by the petitioner.
Assailing the said order, Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned CAT erred in upholding the validity of OM dated 02.09.2013, which was totally contrary to the
Statutory Rules provided under Indian Foreign Service, Branch
‘B’(Recruitment, Cadre, Seniority and Promotion) Rules, 1964
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘IFSB Rules’). The learned counsel also submits that as per the IFSB Rules, the conduct of the Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination is governed by Rule 12 (3) and the said rule commence with the non-obstante clause thereby conferring an over-riding effect on the Rule 12(3) over Rules 12(1) and (2). The learned counsel also submits that the learned CAT did not appreciate the fact that the petitioner was illegally denied the opportunity to appear in a
Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (in short ‘LDCE’), which was to be conducted by the respondents in terms of the un- amended Rule 12(3) of the IFSB Rules. The learned counsel further submits that by the impugned Circular dated 02.09.2013, only one sub cadre of IFS (B), i.e. Section Officer was permitted to appear in the departmental examination while the similarly placed sub-cadre, i.e.
Private Secretaries belonging to SC/ST categories were excluded. The learned counsel also submits that provision of lateral entry of the petitioner into Grade-I level is stipulated in the Statutory Rules &
Regulations in terms of Rule 12 of IFSB Rules and thus, the statutory right of the petitioner could not be taken away by way of an amendment changing the service condition retrospectively.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by him.
This petitioner is primarily challenging the circular dated
02.09.2013 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of
India vide which he was deprived to appear in the Special Limited
Department Examination for SC/ST Officers which was conducted by the
Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
‘UPSC’) on 26.10.2013 and 27.10.2013 for appointment of the Section
Officers to the post of Under Secretary. As per the respondents, the petitioner who belonged to the Stenographer cadres of the IFS ‘B’ is no longer eligible for promotion to Grade-I of IFS ‘B’ after amendment of the Rules effective from 17.10.2008. Indisputably, prior to this amendment, the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the Grade-I of
IFS ‘B’. It has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lateral entry of Stenographer to the promotion Grade was discontinued in October, 2008 and since the vacancies under consideration was of the select list 2009-2010, therefore, clearly this petitioner was not eligible to be considered for promotion against the vacancy for the said year through Special Limited Department
Examination. The learned Tribunal in the impugned order has also observed that amendment dated 17.10.2008 in Rule 12(1) of the IFSC
Rules has already been upheld in the case of Suresh Kumar v. Union of
India & Ors., O.A No. 2139/2012 decided on 23.10.2013 and this position has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the light of the aforesaid facts we find no justifiable ground to disagree with the reasoning given by the learned CAT holding that the petitioner was ineligible to appear in the Limited Department
Competitive Examination to the post of Under Secretary for the vacancies for the year 2009-2010, after the rules were amended in the year 2008.
There is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. I.S.MEHTA, J.
FEBRUARY 24, 2015 v
JUDGMENT