Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9869
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member, Rajveer Singh Verma, Judicial Member
Ravi Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
O.A. 050/00357/2020 | M.A. 050/613/2022 | M.A. 050/29/2021 | M.A. 050/50/2023
For the Applicant(s): Mr. M. P. Dixit
For the Respondent(s): Mr. T. N. Thakur, Sr. CGSC
The Tribunal affirmed the discretion of respondents to limit vacancies based on operational needs, ruling that applicants possess no enforceable right to demand filling all sanctioned posts.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Applicants contesting the number of vacancies notified in LDCE-2020 for Chargeman posts, asserting the number should be 32 instead of 8. The Tribunal held the decision of the respondents was based on functional and manpower needs, exercising lawful discretion. (Paras 1, 6.1, 6.6)
(B) Representation and Legitimate Expectation - The applicants argued for vacancies' enhancement before LDCE conducting, which they claimed deprived them of a fair chance and resulted in hardship. The Tribunal found no enforceable right to fill vacancies not mandated by laws. (Paras 3.1, 4.6)
Facts of the case:
The grievance concerns insufficient vacancies for the LDCE for Chargeman positions, with applicants claiming the sanctioned number was not honored. They argued potential loss of career opportunity due to the respondents' decision.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal affirmed the discretionary authority of the respondents to set the number of vacancies based on operational requirements.
Issues: The core issues were the enforceability of the applicants’ claims for filling vacancies beyond those notified and whether this constituted arbitrary action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the applicants lacked legal grounds to compel the respondents to increase vacancies from 8 to 32 based purely on sanctioned strength, emphasizing executive discretion in recruitment as per requirements.
Result: OA dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to vacancy numbers in ldce (Para 1 , 2) |
ORDER
Per : Hon’ble Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member
The applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 praying for the following relief:
“1. Letter dated 24th April, 2020 issued by the Director/GB, for Director General, Ordnance Factories, Kolkata and Circular No.-217 issued vide Letter No. 010802/OFN/VIG/LDCE-2020 Dated 01.06.2020 by the AD/OL, for General Manager, Ordnance Factory Rajgir, Nalanda as contained in Annexure-A/1-Series, so far the same relates to notifying lesser number of vacancies i.e. only 8 instead of 32 for LDCE for filling up the posts of Chargeman T & NT for the vacancies arising upto 01.01.2020, may be declared erroneous and bad in law.
2. The respondent authorities may be directed to consider and decide the claim of applicants of enhancement of vacancies from 8 to 32 in terms of settled norms and procedure, as presented by the Employee’s Union of applicants, on behalf of applicants in the representations, as contained in Annexure- A/2- series.
3. Any other relief/ reliefs as the applicant is entitled and Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.”
2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case as stated by the applicants in their OA, are delineated and discussed hereinunder :-
The grievance of the applicants is that in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE)-2020 for the post of Chargeman (Technical/Chemical) at Ordnance Factory Rajgir, Nalanda, only 08 vacancies were notified under the LDCE quota, whereas as per them, 25% of the total sanctioned strength of 129 posts – i.e., 32 posts – ought to have been earmarked for LDCE. The Employees’ Union, on behalf of the applicants, submitted representations dated 01.06.2020, 03.06.2020 and 04.06.2020 requesting correction of the vacancy figure from 08 to 32 before the examination was scheduled. According to the applicants, the failure to decide these representations before conducting the LDCE was arbitrary which deprived them of a fair chance of selection, and compelled them to approach this Tribunal for estoppel after appearing in the exam. Hence, the applicants have approached this tribunal seeking appropriate relief including direction to the respondents to recalculate and notify the correct number of vacancies under LDCE quota in accordance with the sanctioned strength and promotional policy and to consider their representation before finalizing the results of the LDCE 2020 held from 05.10.20 to 12.10.2020.
3.1 Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the present case arises out of an erroneous calculation of vacancies for the post of Chargeman (Technical/Chemical) in Ordnance Factory Rajgir, Nalanda, which directly affects the applicants’ chances in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).
3.2 Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the Employees’ Union, acting on behalf of the applicants, had promptly taken up the matter with the administration by making three written representations It is further submitted that all the applicants, while registering their protest through the Employees’ Union, had nevertheless submitted their candidature for the LDCE in order to safeguard their rights. They had a legitimate expectation that their representations would be considered, and the vacancies corrected, before the conduct of the examination. However, without deciding these genuine and bona fide representations, the respondents issued admit cards to the applicants and fixed the LDCE from 05.10.2020 to 12.10.2020, such action is arbitrary and unfair. The administration was duty-bound to first adjudicate upon the grievance regarding the vacancy calculation before proceeding with the examination process.
3.3 Learned Counsel for the applicants further contended that the applicants are placed in a precarious position , if they appear in the LDCE without the correction of vacancies
