W.P.(C.) No.4396/2008 & 6345/2002

Page 1 of 17

$~ 6 & 20.

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Date of Decision: 18.12.2014

%

W.P.(C) 4396/2008 and C.M. Nos. 461/2014 & 20687-88/2014

BHUWAN RAM & ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Dr. Monika Gusain, Ms. Geeta Singh & Mr.

Hari Om Yaduvanshi, Advocates.

versus

UOI & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate for respondents

No.1 to 3.

Mr.

V.S.R.

Krishna,

Advocate

for

respondents Nos.7 & 36.

%

W.P.(C) 6345/2002 and C.M. No.10836/2002

C.R.C.S. ASSOCIATION & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. K.C.Mittal & Ms. Ruchika Mittal,

Advocates.

versus

UOI & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate for respondents

No.1 to 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)

1.

The petitioners in W.P.(C.) No.4396/2008 challenge an order of the Central

Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) dated 17.07.2007 in O.A. No.1694/2006 (they

shall hereinafter be referred to as “the direct recruits”). In the other proceedings, i.e.,

W.P.(C.) No. 6345/2002, the writ petitioners challenge the correctness of an order of the

CAT dated 20.09.2002 in O.A. No.354/2002 (for the sake of convenience, these

petitioners – since they represent interests that are contrary to that of the direct recruits,

shall hereafter be referred to as “the promotees”).

2014:DHC:7256-DB

W.P.(C.) No.4396/2008 & 6345/2002

Page 2 of 17

2.

The controversy involved is with respect to the recruitment process which

commenced in 1996-97 pursuant to the amendment, which was effective upon the

Central Revenue Chemical Services (CRCS), an organisation which is part of the Central

Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL).

3.

The CRCS comprises of posts in the cadre of Assistant Chemical Examiner

(ACE) and Chemical Examiner (CE). Prior to 1993, the cadre of ACE was to be filled to

the extent of 25% of vacancies by direct recruitment and the balance 75% by promotion

from amongst eligible existing employees in the department. This ratio was changed

after the amendment in 1993 (to 33⅓ % to be filled by direct recruits and 66⅔ % to be

filled by promotes). After the amendment, the exercise of determining direct recruit

vacancies was apparently conducted and for the vacancy year 1996, a requisition was

sent to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in respect of the posts of ACE and

CE. These positions were advertised in December 1996 and subsequently, again on

14.02.1998. The direct recruit candidates had applied for these pursuant to this

advertisement and participated in the recruitment process held in that regard.

4.

In the meanwhile, pending the finalization of the recruitment process, some

existing employees approached the CAT by filing O.A. No.2470/1998 (hereafter “the

first proceeding”) claiming that the amendment to the recruitment rules were not justified

and seeking the quashing of the notification advertising the vacancies in the cadre of

direct recruit vacancies. During the pendency of these proceedings, the CAT had

directed status quo. Ultimately, O.A. No.2470/1998 was dismissed on 17.05.1999. The

promotees choose to prefer a writ petition being W.P.(C.) No. 3591/1999, which was

dismissed on 18.01.2002. On account of pendency of litigation, the direct recruitments

which had been, in the meantime, finalized by the UPSC could not be proceeded with.

On 15.01.2001, 59 existing employees were promoted as ACEs.

5.

Immediately after dismissal of the writ petition of the promotees, the appointment

of the present direct recruits was sought to be challenged by the promotees by filing O.A.

No.354/2002 (hereafter “the second proceeding”). In this round of litigation, the

2014:DHC:7256-DB

W.P.(C.) No.4396/2008 & 6345/2002

Page 3 of 17

promotees challenged the efficacy of the process of direct recruitment, which had been

undertaken in 1998