Debindra Kundraa vs Union Of India Through And Anr

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was appointed as Research Assistant (Technical) in the Technical Research Cadre (TRC) of the Cabinet Secretariat on 27.12.1995. The Recruitment Rules that govern the service in the organization enable the appointing authority to select and appoint officers by way of lateral entry, without the necessity to follow the procedure prescribed for recruitment, up to certain percentage. In exercise of such powers, the Government appointed 11 Deputy Field Officers as Research Assistant (Technical) in TRC, through order dated 13.04.2007. It is stated that the persons so appointed were placed above the applicant in the seniority list, vide Memo dated 13.04.2011. The applicant filed OA No.3309/2012 before this Tribunal making a grievance of the same. The OA was dismissed through order dated 29.05.2015. The applicant filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court but the same was withdrawn by him.

The 2nd respondent was appointed as Research Officer (Technical) in the TRC vide order dated 12.12.2013, through lateral entry. The applicant submitted a representation dated 29.01.2014 taking exception to that. He pleaded that taking recourse to lateral induction of officers would lead to a sense of insecurity to him. He apprehends a threat of downgradation of seniority in future. This OA is filed with a prayer to declare the appointment of the 2nd respondent as Research Officer (Tech) as illegal and arbitrary and to restore his seniority in that cadre.

The respondents filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations of the applicant. It is stated that the necessity for inducting persons with technical knowledge became necessary to meet the new challenges, referable to phenomenal advancement in the Information Technology and the potential challenge to security. It is stated that officers from Telecom Department were inducted from time to time, and the appointment of 2nd respondent is one such. Reference is made to Rule 161 (A) of Research & Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre & Service) Rules, 1975. It is also stated that the plea of the applicant in this behalf was repelled by the Tribunal in OA No.3309/2012, and there is no merit in the OA.

The applicant does not dispute that the Rules empower the respondents to induct persons through lateral entry, depending upon their needs and satisfaction. Earlier, he made an attempt to challenge the appointment of all the RO (Techs) who were appointed through this process; by filing OA No.3309/2012. After undertaking extensive discussion, the Tribunal dismissed the OA. The writ petition filed by the applicant was withdrawn. Thereby the order in the OA assumed finality.

The applicant did not even make an attempt to differentiate this case with the one in OA No.3309/2012.

When the similar appointment and the grant of seniority in favour of 11 RO (Techs) was upheld by this Tribunal, it is just not understandable as to how different view would be possible vis a vis the 2nd respondent. The OA is barred by res judicata.

We do not find accordingly dismissed. any merit in the OA and it is There shall be no order as to costs.