Saturday, March 20, 2010

CAT Madras holds the Group B examination held in 2008 as defective, arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory

Normally, any departmental examination for promotion is held every year depending upon year-wise vacancies so that the eligible candidate for a particular year vacancy would get opportunity to get selection for subsequent year vacancies. But disregarding all principles, the department conducted Group B examination by bunching of vacancies for four years viz. 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Our Association objected to it. But the Department did not heed. Some of IP/ASP filed cases before CAT Madras and CAT Patna and prayed for a stay order. The honourable CATs at that time rejected to pass stay order. Though the single selection for all the four years is prejudicial to majority of the eligible candidates the Department successfully conducted the examination. With a result many juniors who were not at all eligible for the vacancies of 2004, 2005 and 2006 were allowed to appear, got selected and promoted. Now many ineligible candidates are working as PS Group B officer. The CAT Madras passed an order in OA 64/08 and some of the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:

“ 15. If the selection for promotion is based every year separately for 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, depending upon year-wise vacancies, the eligible candidate for 2003 who did not get selection for the year vacancies, would get opportunity to seek selection for subsequent year vacancies and because of bunching of vacancies for all the four years and holding single selection is prejudicial to majority of the eligible candidate and such selection is detrimental to the eligible employees for whose purpose it has been intended. The respondents have not placed any instruction of guidelines in support their claim for holding the single selection by bunching of vacancies for 4 years or several years.

16. In view of such circumstances as discussed above, the decision to bunch the vacancies for all the four years together and holding a simple selection is discriminatory, arbitrary, unfair and also amounts to defect the selection.

17. In spite of objections raised by the applicants by way of representations an also by filing of this OA, the authorities have not taken any care and proceeded further in conducting examinations. The authorities have completed most of the selection procedure in conducting examination and also declared the result of the successful candidates in the written test.

18. In view of such circumstances, if this selection is restricted for the vacancies for the year 2003, no harm would be caused to any of the eligible candidates who faced the examination and selection for the year 2003 is held valid and the selection for the vacancies for 2004, 2005 and 2006 are held to be defective, arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory. Thus the claim of the applicants is allowed partly, directing the respondents to secure year-wise vacancies for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 in respect of promotion to the cadre of Postal Services Group B by preparing year-wise list of eligible candidates and also vacancies and thereafter hold fresh Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), restricting the present selection only for the year 2003.

19. In the result, the OA is partly allowed as above, with no order as to costs.”

What is the use of this order? The Department has deliberately conducted this examination. No relief was given by the CAT to affected candidates at that time. Selected candidates have now promoted and working in the higher posts. Justice is supposed to be delivered in time.

Justice delayed is Justice denied!

General Secretary

No comments:

Post a Comment