Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6648
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. R.N. Singh, J, Mr. B. Anand, A
Pooran Lal – Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Security, Directorate General of Security – Respondent
OA No. 2726/2018|MA No. 2240/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. U Srivastava
For the Respondents: Sh. R.K. Jain
The Tribunal affirmed that it cannot direct policy-making or interfere with cadre restructuring, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State, unless fundamental rights are violated.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Cadre restructuring - Applicants sought to quash an order regarding their promotional avenues and cadre review - The Tribunal dismissed the OA, affirming that the respondents acted within their jurisdiction regarding policy-making and cadre restructuring. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Policy-making - The Tribunal cannot direct the formation of policy or review cadre structures as it falls within the exclusive discretion of the State, provided it does not violate constitutional rights. (Paras 10-12)
(C) Recruitment Rules - The applicants were governed by the 1977 Rules and subsequent restructuring did not unjustly affect their promotional prospects as per the existing provisions. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, employed as Aircraft Assistants, challenged the inaction of the respondents regarding cadre review and promotional avenues, claiming that prior rulings had established their rights.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found no merit in the applicants' claims, emphasizing the policy discretion of the respondents in cadre restructuring.
Issues: The key issues were whether the Tribunal could direct policy changes and the legitimacy of the respondents' actions regarding cadre restructuring.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that policy-making is within the jurisdiction of the executive, and the Tribunal cannot interfere unless there is a violation of fundamental rights.
Result: Original Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of applicants and context of their grievances. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. court's analysis of previous rulings and their applicability. (Para 3 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. arguments regarding the need for cadre review and past judgments. (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final decision to dismiss the oa. (Para 15) |
| 5. ratio decidendi on the authority of the tribunal to direct policy. (Para 16) |
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
By way of the present Original Application (OA) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
“(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before their Lordships for the proper adjudication the matter in the interest of justice.
(b) Quash and setting aside the impugned orders dt. 20.04.18 further directing the respondents to consider and finalize the case of the applicants/Aircraft Assistants, for amendment of recruitment rules and cadre review/change of cadre to executive cadre, creating promotional avenues accordingly as per the relevant rules and instructions as well as the mandatory provision of law.
(c) to allow the present O.A. of the applicant with all other consequential benefits and cost.
(d) any other fit and proper relief may also be granted.
2. In response to notice, counter reply on behalf of respondents has been filed. By way of the counter reply, the respondents have disputed and denied the claim of the applicants. The applicants have filed rejoinder and have reiterated their claim.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have also perused the pleadings available on record.
4. The applicants are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not finalizing the cadre restructuring and creation of promotional avenues and an order dated 20.04.2018. It is undisputed that the applicants had approached this Tribunal earlier by way of filing OA No. 183/2018 which was disposed of at the admission stage itself vide order dated 01.02.2018 directing the respondents to consider the legal notice got issued on behalf of the applicants and to pass appropriate reasoned and speaking orders within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. RA No. 42/2018 filed against the said order in OA was dismissed on 15.03.2018. The present OA has been filed challenging the order dated 20.04.2018 which is stated to have been passed in purported compliance of order passed in OA No. 183/2018 (supra).
5. During pendency of the OA, MA No. 2240/2024 has been filed on behalf of the respondents seeking dismissal of the OA by contending that identical issue came up before Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 297/2015 and the Allahabad Bench has dismissed the said OA. It is further contended that by taking into consideration the order/judgment in OA No. 297/2015 (supra), Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal has also passed an order/judgment in OA No. 176/2016 dismissing the said OA. By referring to the assertions made in the MA and the judgments of the Tribunal in OA No. 297/2015 (supra) and OA No. 176/2016 (supra), learned counsel for the respondents has prayed for taking the said documents on record and dismissal of the captioned OA.
6. Undisputed facts are that the applicants who were recruited prior to 04.01.2011 were governed by ARC (Air Wing Staff) Recruitment Rules, 1977 which came into existence w.e.f. 06.03.1977. On account of Administrative exigency and for expanding the promotional avenues of the applicants in consequence to the Cadre review the new Directorate General of Security (Miscellaneous Cadre) Recruitment Rules 2010 were framed which were promulgated w.e.f. 04.01.2011. As per the extant RRs, the JFAs having different trades including that of the Applicants are being governed accordingly and strength of this Cadre is 725. In view of the same the JFAs (ACA) who are not separate entity but they are part and parcel of the JFA
