AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madan B. Lokur, J.
The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 25th January, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 996/2005.
The Respondent was promoted as a Research Assistant some time in 1990 but did not get any further promotion for quite some time. When the Respondent became a Research Assistant, the cadre strength in the promotion post of Research Officer was 8 but subsequently 5 posts were abolished and only 3 posts of Research Officer remained.
In 2004 when the seniority list of Research Assistant was drawn up, the Respondent''s name was shown at serial No. 2. A regular Departmental Promotions Committee (DPC) was held on 16th June, 2005 and recommended the case of the Respondent for promotion to the post of Research Officer as a general category candidate. However, one Shri R.S. Meena, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, represented to the Petitioner that in terms of the 14 point roster, one of the posts was required to be filled up by a Scheduled Tribe candidate.
On the representation of Shri R.S. Meena, a reference was made to the Department of Personnel & Training and the opinion given by them is of some importance. The Department of Personnel & Training opined as follows:
"The sanctioned strength of the cadre was earlier 8, which has now been reduced to 3. In 14- point L shaped roster, 12 points have so far been consumed. The point of reference is when the cadre strength has been reduced to 3, should roster be started ab initio.
12 points of the L shaped roster have been consumed. Remaining two points of the roster should first be consumed. Thereafter fresh roster from point No. 1 may be started."
On receipt of the advice of the Department of Personnel & Training, a review DPC was constituted by the Petitioner for making the promotions. Since the Respondent was No. 2 in the seniority list of general category candidates, she apprehended that she may not be promoted as a Research Officer since one of the vacancies was to go to a Scheduled Tribe candidate. Therefore, she filed an original application before the Tribunal praying for a direction for holding a review DPC to consider her for promotion in accordance with the model roster for 3 posts and to grant to her all consequential benefits. By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal allowed her application and that is how the Petitioner is now before us.
In our opinion, the Tribunal overlooked the opinion given by the Department of Personnel & Training. It is true that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 2nd July, 1997 which was issued consequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, , it is provided in paragraph 4(b) that the number of points in the roster shall be equal to the number of posts in the cadre and in case there is any increase or decrease in the cadre strength in future, the roster shall be expanded/contracted correspondingly.
However, the manner of operating the roster is really a matter for the Department of Personnel & Training to advise on. The decision taken by this Department, in so far as the present case is concerned, was that since 12 points have already been consumed in the 14 point L shaped roster, it would be appropriate that the remaining 2 points of the roster should first be consumed. Thereafter, a fresh roster from point No. 1 may be started keeping in mind the cadre strength of 3. It appears to us that there is nothing irrational in this interpretation given by the Department of Personnel & Training to the 14 point roster.
It does appear that this case is somewhat unusual in the sense that the cadre strength was quite low (as it is) having a sanctioned strength of 8 and it became lower still with the abolition of 5 posts. But the Department of Personnel and Training felt that since the 14 point roster had already been operated for the cadre strength of 8 and 12 points had already been consumed in the L shaped roster, it would be appropriate to consume the remaining 2 points rather than to restart the process from the very beginning, that is, from point No. 1. This is a possible view that could be taken to tide over the immediate problem.
Undoubtedly, the interpretation given by the Department of Personnel & Training does not suit the Respondent. However, we are of the opinion that as long as the interpretation given to the Office Memorandum dated 2nd July, 1997 is workable, it would not be appropriate either for the Tribunal or this Court to interfere. In the event of any doubt in the operation of the Office Memorandum, it is best left to the administrative authorities, particularly the Department of Personnel & Training to sort out the issue rather than for the Tribunal or this Court to substitute its own views for that of the said department, so long as the interpretation is not perverse or irrational.
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside and the original application filed by the Respondent before the Tribunal is dismissed.