CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.243/2009
MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2011
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)
Sri G.Ramamohan Rao,
Aged about 57 years,
S/o Suryanarayana,
Working as Mechanical Engineer,
(Junior), Geological Survey of India,
AMSE Wing, Vashudha Bhavan,
Bangalore – 70. ... Applicant.
(By Advocate M/s. R.S. Jois Associates)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
rep. By its Secretary,
Ministry of Mines,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
No.27, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Kolkata – 700016.
3. The Deputy Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
AMSE Wing, Vashudha Bhavan,
Bangalore – 70.
4. The Union Public Service Commission,
rep. By its Secretary,
North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001.
5. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
New Delhi – 110 001. ...Respondents
(By Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri N.Y.Guruprakash)
O R D E R (ORAL)
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. He argued that it is a small matter pertaining to the promotion of the applicant who is at present working as
- 2 -
Mechanical Engineer (Junior) and his claim for promotion to the post of Mechanical Engineer (Senior) by relaxation of educational qualification as is done in the case of other in-service collegues. His short argument is that the Cadre Recruitment Rules require that person promoted as Mechanical Engineer (Senior) will have the essential qualification of degree in Mechanical or Automobile Engineering or equivalent of a recognised University and 3 years professional experience in a workshop/establishment of Automobile or heavy machinery. However, the qualification is relaxable at the discretion of the UPSC in case of candidates who are otherwise well qualified.
2. In the present instance, the seniority list is attached at Annexure A2 showing the applicant at sl.no.3 and his two juniors at sl.no.4&5 who possess the required qualification of Mechanical Engineering. They have been given promotion against which he has no grievance. At the same time two more colleagues at sl.no.7&10 who do not possess the qualification of Mechanical Engineer have also been given promotion by relaxing their required qualification. Hence the claim of the applicant is that even he possesses the degree of Electrical Engineering but has worked in the automobile workshop under the same department for many number of years and therefore he should be considered eligible for relaxation just as consideration has been shown in respect of his colleagues at sl.no.7 (Shri Kanaya Singh) and sl.no.10 (Shri Krishan Chandra).
3. The respondents have replied at para-5.1 that the reason for not promoting the applicant was that he did not satisfy the essential qualification. However, it is admitted that whenever essential qualification is not there, DOPT being competent authority may relax the same. The two colleagues namely Shri Kanhaia Singh and Shri Krishan Chandra were promoted to Mechanical
- 3 -
Engineer (Senior) because such a required relaxation was accorded by the Competent Authority namely DOPT after the respondents had referred the matter. Further, the case of the applicant for relaxation of educational qualification has also been taken up by the Ministry with DOPT and response from the DOPT is still awaited.
4. We find that this reply has been filed by respondents on 2.12.2009 and there seems no persuasion by the respondents with DOPT. They have also not produced any document to show when and with what recommendation the matter was referred to DOPT. The applicant is now due to retire shortly, hence we have no hesitation whatsoever to observe that prima facie there appears to be a discrimination between handling of the promotion of the applicant and promotion of his two colleagues at sl.no.7 and 10. The learned Counsel for applicant has also cited the judgement given by the Apex Court in (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 104 – State of Karnataka and Another Vs. R.Vivekananda Swamy and another, namely Civil Appeal No.2335 of 2008 – State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Savitri Upadhyay. In both these the question under consideration was about power of relaxation – how to be exercised - and it was held that the exercise of power for relaxation should be fair and reasonable.
5. We have therefore, no hesitation to issue direction to the respondents that they shall expedite the matter with the competent authorities and in any case pas necessary orders on the representations made by the applicant dated 15.3.2011 (Annexure A3), dated 4.8.2008 (Annexure A4), dated 21.3.2007 (Annexure A5)
- 4 -
and dated 28.8.2008 (Annexure A6) within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy oft his order. Needless to say that while pursuing the matter with DOPT the respondents will also give full comparative details of the cases of said Kanaya Singh and Krishan Chandra and draw DOPT's attention to the two cited cases at para 4 supra and to the present OA.
OA is accordingly disposed of with these directions to the respondents. No order as to costs.
(V. AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
sd.
No comments:
Post a Comment