ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicants seeking the following relief:

“To call for the records relating to impugned File No. LDCE- 2022/AE/Exam/13, dated 16.02.2023, issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to conduct a separate LDCE examination for respective vacancy years after addressing the various issues raised in this Original Application and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fiT and proper”

2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:

The Applicants initially joined as Junior Engineers in the Civil and Electrical Wings of the respondent's department and were later promoted on an ad hoc basis to Assistant Engineers. According to the Recruitment Rules for Assistant Engineers, the method of recruitment is 80% by promotion from Junior Engineers with five years of service and 20% from through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for Junior Engineers with four years of service. However, due to administrative delays, the department failed to make promotions as per the set quotas and instead relied on ad hoc promotions. In 2014, an LDCE Notification was issued but later cancelled. A subsequent LDCE in 2015 for 12 vacancy years is still under legal challenge. For seven years, despite vacancies arising annually under the 20% quota, the department did not conduct an LDCE. In May 2022, a new Notification (LDCE-2022) was issued, covering eight years of vacancies from 2015-2022, but it lacked clarity and violated the department’s own guidelines. The Notification also breached Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) instructions regarding the consideration of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) and Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for each vacancy year. Aggrieved parties filed OA No.598 of 2022 challenging this Notification. Before a judgment was issued, the respondents cancelled the LDCE in February 2023 due to technical issues at exam centres but then issued a new Notification, largely unchanged from the previous one. The Tribunal, noting the cancellation, closed the OA and allowed the applicants to pursue their grievances in the appropriate legal manner. The applicants' main concern is the holding of a single examination to fill vacancies spanning eight years under the LDCE quota. This single exam reduces their opportunities for promotion, as eligibility for each year’s vacancies was supposed to be considered separately. The applicants argue that this violates their fundamental right under Article 16, as it deprives them of the chance to compete for each year's vacancies individually. Citing a similar case decided by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal ( Vimal Bharadwaj vs. BSNL , OA No.505/HP/2010 ), the Tribunal had previously ruled that a single exam for multiple years is unfair and denies individuals the right to compete each year. Despite raising these concerns in the earlier OA, the respondents issued a new Notification with similar issues, prompting the current application.

3. The Learned counsel for the applicants argued that, as per the Recruitment Rules, vacancies arising under the 20% quota must be filled on a yearly basis. The respondent's failure to conduct the LDCEs is illegal. The applicants have a right to be considered for the 20% quota in the same year the vacancy arises, and this right should not be determined by a single opportunity. Under normal circumstances, if the LDCE had been conducted annually as mandated by the rules, a candidate would have had an opportunity each year. The counsel further emphasized that due to administrative inefficiency, the applicants should not face adverse consequences. Administrative constraints that prevented the holding of eight examinations cannot be used as grounds to deny a constitutional right to be considered for the eight opportunities in the respective vacancy years under the 20% quota, provided they are otherwise elig