*BREAKING: *राजभाषा विभाग के दिनांक 3 जुलाई,2018 के कार्यालय-ज्ञापन के संदर्भ में,2016-17 की रिक्तियों के लिए वरिष्ठ अनुवादकों की पदोन्नति का कार्य प्रगति पर; डीपीसी की बैठक अगस्त में ही संभावित। *उप-निदेशक(राजभाषा) के तौर पर पदोन्नति हेतु संयुक्त सेवावधि के प्रावधान को बहाल करने का प्रस्ताव राजभाषा विभाग के विचाराधीन। *सहायक निदेशकों को रिवर्ट किए जाने के खिलाफ दायर मामले में कैट,दिल्ली ने 22 मार्च,2018 को सुनवाई करते हुए स्थगन आदेश जारी किया। *रिवर्ट किए गए सहायक निदेशकों से रिफंड लेने का नियम नहीं।

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

वाद संख्या 1727 की मुख्य बातें

साथियो, 
जैसी कि सूचना दी जा चुकी है,01 मई,2015 के बाद की रिक्तियों के एवज़ में सीधी भर्ती केवल 25 प्रतिशत रखने के लिए 42 अनुवादकोे ने वाद दायर किया है(OA 1727/2016) जिसपर 16 मई,2016 को सुनवाई के बाद कैट ने अगली तारीख 28 जुलाई निर्धारित की है। आप सबकी सूचना के लिए यहां वाद से संबंधित मुख्य तथ्य रखे जा रहे हैं- 
1. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER / CAUSE AGAINST WHICH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IS FILED

A. Impugned order No. 16/8/2014-O.L (Service) dated 12.6.2014 of Department of Official Language. 

B. Impugned Advertisement No. 12/2015 of UPSC. 

4. FACTS OF THE CASE: 
4.1 That the applicants joined Department of Official Language as Jr. Translator. After rendering 3 years of regular service, the applicants became eligible to be considered for promotion as Sr. Translator. However, the applicants were not promoted as Sr. Translator even after rendering more than 15 to 20 years of service and further not promoted them as Assistant Director in time inspite of availability of vacancies by holding regular DPCs. Respondents regularised adhoc Assistant Director for vacancy year 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 vide recent orders all dated 17.03.2016 (a copy of each order attached as Annexure A-2) but did not hold DPC for vacancy year 2015-16 so far. 

4.2 That the applicants in the OA are those Sr. Translators who have been included in zone of consideration in DPC to make 65 pomotions against normal vacancies after filling up resultant vacancies on adhoc basis and also those Sr. Translators who are expecting their promotion in near future. 

4.10 That it is also relevant to notice that vide aforesaid order dated 10.2.2012, the respondents promoted 60 more Senior Translators to the post of ad hoc Assistant Director making the total strength of ad hoc Assistant Directors to 160, where Shri Jharkhandey Singh is the junior most. (circulated Seniority list of 160 ad hoc Assistant Directors attached). Out of 160 ad hoc Assistant Directors, 29 adhoc Assistant Directors have been regularised for pre-cadre review period and 55 adhoc Assistant Directors have been regularised for resultant vacancy year 2011-12 vide orders all dated 17.03.2016. The said action of respondents regularizing only 55 adhoc promotions for resultant vacancy year 2011-12 instead of regularising 112 adhoc promotions against resultant vacancies and regularising remaining adhoc promotions Shri Jharkhandey Singh against normal vacancies of resultant vacancy year 2011-12 can not be said to be justified being violative of their own decisions taken for holding cadre review. 

4.13 That in fact, both the aforesaid decisions conveyed vide letter dated 12.06.2014 are erroneous because provision of ACP/MACP can not be equated with the provision of promotion, particularly those promotions which are by way of restructuring to remove the stagnation. Secondly, the decision of the respondents to fill up 50 of resultant vacancies by direct recruitment is also erroneous because the resultant posts have arisen as a result of restructuring order which was passed by the government in order to remove the stagnation and in this view of the matter, the action of the respondents by deciding to fill up 50 of the vacancies by direct recruitment is like giving by one hand and taking it by the other. The decision of filling up the resultant vacancies was not only arbitrary but was also illegal inasmuch as, when the Ministry of Home Affairs with approval of Ministry of Finance had decided to fill up the resultant vacancies by way of promotion only, how could the subordinate authority decide to fill up 50 resultant vacancies by way of direct recruitment. 

4.15 That if recruitment of 50 Assistant Director is made by the UPSC then only after 11 years i.e. in end of the year 2027, 18 direct recruits will occupy all posts of Director (18) and remaining 32 direct recruits will occupy the post of Joint Director. Meaning thereby, the applicants never get chance for promotion to the aforesaid post of Jr. Director & Director. This said fact may be verified from the date of birth of available Assistant Directors. 

4.16 That it is also relevant to notice that the respondent’s vide their letter dated 12.06.2014 (Annexure A-7) revealed that they had also initiated the DPC proceedings asking APAR of 98 Senior Translators vide their OM No. 15/95/2013-O.L(service) dated 29.01.2014 (Annexure A-8) to fill up 65 posts of Assistant Director lying vacant at that point of time on ad hoc arrangement in the same manner as that of resultant vacancies. However, finally, the respondents cleared only 15 promotions and kept the 50 vacancies vacant. No reasons were assigned for not filling up all the 65 vacancies of Assistant Director required to be filled up under the un-amended rule. 

4.17 That in fact, the respondents were taking self contradictory stands and were not implementing their own decisions of filling up resultant vacancies by way of promotion only. The applicants did their best to get the available vacancies filled up by way of promotion. However, instead of agreeing with the applicants, the respondents issued an advertisement No. 12/2015 on 12.09.2015 to fill up 50 posts of Assistant Director by way of direct recruitment. 

4.18 That after the issue of aforesaid advertisement the applicants made several representations dated 24.06.2015 and 10.07.2015 through Dinesh Kumar Singh President of Central Secretariat Official Language Service Translators Association to ensure that before resorting to direct recruitment as per the new RRs notified in 2015 all the vacancies became available under the old RRs are filled up by way of promotions. In fact, vide notification dated 01.05.2015 the respondents amended the RRs for the post of Assistant Director and categorized the same as group ‘A’ post in the scale of Rs. 15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs. 5400. Since before making aforesaid amendment, the post was categorized as group ‘B’ and in the advertisement the same was shown as group ‘A’, therefore the respondents were required to ensure that only new vacancies occurred after notification of RRs are filled up. However, the respondents acted arbitrarily and decided to give 50 vacancies from the newly created vacancies to the direct recruits and that too by violating the settled legal position that the vacancies occurred under old RRs cannot be filled up by new RRs. 

4.19 That the respondents have also ignored another most relevant fact that vacancies arisen after 12.9.2011 and before 1-5-2015 have to be filled up in the same manner as that of resultant posts because during this period, there was no rule as to how these posts could be filled up, particularly, when after the decision of 6th Pay Commission to upgrade the post of Assistant Director from group ‘B’ to group ‘A’, no rules had been framed till 1-5-2015 and therefore, all those vacancies arisen in the meantime have to be filled up in the same manner in which resultant vacancies have been filled up by the respondents. 

4.21 That as the respondents were not ready to appreciate the version of applicants, therefore, they again submitted representations on 25.01.2016 and 13.04.2016 through Dinesh Kumar Singh, President of Central Secretariat Official Language Service Translators Association for rectifying the said illegality. However, the respondents have acted arbitrarily as they have not consider the said representation in spite of applicants best efforts. The applicants have time and again explained to the respondents that when the resultant vacancies of cadre review were to be filled up only by way of promotion and the new RRs were notified and made effective only 01.05.2015 by no means 50 vacancies of AD could be given to direct recruitment. 

4.22 That it is also relevant to notice that the respondents have not only ignored the law regarding filling up the vacancies as per the prevalent rules, but they also failed to consider that vacancies as became available either due to retirement or for any other reason are required to be calculated and filled up as per the different modes prescribed in the RRs and within the quota prescribed. The DOP&T also issued circular dated 19.01.2007 to distribute the vacancies as per the quota prescribed in the RRs. A perusal of said OM also makes it clear that all the cadres are required to fill up vacancies by using vacancy based roster. Copy of relevant instructions are annexed as ANNEXURE A-9. 

4.23 That the calculation of the vacancies as referred above was required to be done by applying vacancy based roster. when the vacancy based roster is applied, only 25% vacancies of Assistant Director occurred after 01.05.2015 can be filled up by way of direct recruitment and the remaining vacancies are required to be filled up by promotion. However, the respondents have advertised 50 vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment quota. If against 25% quota the respondents allocated 50 vacancies to DR quota, minimum 150 vacancies were required to be given for promotion. However, the respondents have not given even a single vacancy for promotion after amendment in RRs. Therefore immediate intervention of this Hon'ble Tribunal is warranted on the following amongst other grounds:- 

5. GROUNDS:
-Because the respondents have failed to consider that as per DOP&T OM No. AB-14017/18/2000- Estt. (RR) dated 12.01.2007, the vacancies arose at particular point of time are required to be filled up as per the quota prescribed under the relevant rules and all the available vacancies cannot be given to one quota. If the respondents found 50 vacancies for 25% quota, minimum 150 vacancies should have been given to promotion quota as per the statutory Recruitment Rules wherein, it has been provided that 75% shall be filled up through promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. 

-Because the respondents have given no justification for giving 50 vacancies for direct recruitment quota and not even a single vacancy for promotion quota after 01.05.2015. In fact, the respondents have not conducted DPC for vacancy year 2015-16. If the respondents had acted as per statutory RRs and conducted DPCs timely, the applicants would have got promotion as Assistant Director being covered within available vacancies of Assistant Director. 

-Because the respondents have wrongly treated the available vacancies for DR quota. As per the DOP&T instructions and settled law position, in the matter of promotion and recruitment vacancy based roster is required to be followed and this Hon'ble Tribunal has also viewed so in the case of Pradeep Kumar Tyagi & Ors. In the said case, the Hon'ble Tribunal had directed to fill up the available four vacancies in the ratio of 50:50 as per statutory Recruitment Rules and not by only one quota i.e. deputation. Copy of said judgment dated 11.02.2014 is annexed as Annexure A-10. 

-Because the respondents action in issuing advertisement to fill up the vacancies of Assistant Director, (CSOLS) by way of direct recruitment is contrary to the mandate of OM dated 12.09.2011 wherein, it was clearly provided that the resultant vacancies of the various cadres are required to be filled up by way of promotion based upon seniority cum fitness and hence. 

-Because while not filling the resultant vacancies in accordance with the mandate of para 2 of OM dated 12.09.2011, the respondents have erred in law as well as facts. It is strange that the respondents are not following their own decisions in the matter of filling up vacancies of Assistant Director. 

-Because the fact cannot be ignored that in the OM dated 12.09.2011, in consultation with DOP&T, it was specifically decided to fill up the resultant vacancies in all the grades by way of promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness with the approval of DOP&T. When the decision was taken to fill up the vacancies of Assistant Director created on account of cadre restructuring by way of promotion, how could the said vacancies be filled up by direct recruitment. 

-Because the respondents have acted in most arbitrary and unjustified manner as when the issue regarding filling up all the vacancies of Assistant Director till the notification of new RRs as well as the vacancies became available due to cadre restructuring were required to be fill up by way of promotion was under consideration, how could all of sudden, the advertisement be issued to fill up the vacancies meant for promotion by way of direct recruitment. 

-Because it is clear from the respondents own documents that out of 65 normal vacancies, only 15 vacancies were consumed for Adhoc promotion and remaining 50 vacancies reserved for direct recruitment without any justification. 

8. RELIEF SOUGHT: 
 For the facts and circumstances stated in above, it is most respectfully prayed that their lordship of this Tribunal would be pleased:- 

 (a) To declare the action of the respondents in not filling up available vacancies of Assistant Director by promotion as per the quota prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and notifying the 50 vacancies for filling up by way of direct recruitment, as illegal and arbitrary. 

(b) To declare the action of respondents in filling up 50 vacancies of Assistant Director by way of direct recruitment and not making promotions in the equal proportionate as per RRs amongst Sr. Translator as illegal and arbitrary and issue appropriate directions to fill up all the available vacancies of Assistant Director up to 30.04.2015 by way of promotion in the ratio of 75:25 as prescribed in the statutory Recruitment Rules notified and implemented w.e.f. 01.05.2015. 

(c) To direct the respondents to calculate the vacancies of Assistant Director correctly and fill up the same strictly as per the prescribed quota in the RRs by considering the claim of applicants as well as other eligible officers.

(d) To quash and set aside the impugned advertisement No. 12/2015 and issue further directions to fill up all the vacancies of Assistant Director as per the quota prescribed in the RRs. 

(e) To allow the O.A. with costs. 

(f) Pass such other direction or directions order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice. 

INTERIM RELIEF. 
Not prayed at this stage.

6 comments:

  1. मान्यवर,

    आप संवर्ग के उत्थान के लिए प्रयत्नरत हैं, यह सराहना की बात है। कृपया 28 जुलाई, 2016 को कोर्ट केस के संबंध में हुई अदालती कार्रवाई के बारेे में बताने का कष्ट करें।

    ReplyDelete
  2. Next date of hearing on 24th November2016. The advocate for respondents did not appear on 28th July.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Next date of hearing on 24th November2016. The advocate for respondents did not appear on 28th July.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What happened in Nov hearing

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jhaji would you please inform me as to what happened of AD result and court case





    ReplyDelete

स्वयं छद्म रहकर दूसरों की ज़िम्मेदारी तय करने वालों की और विषयेतर टिप्पणियां स्वीकार नहीं की जाएंगी।