ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash or set aside Column 10 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Director (Conservation) and consequent thereto to set aside Columns 6, 7 and 11 as well. Further prayer of applicant is to direct the respondents to re-frame/amend the Recruitment Rules in accordance with the DOP&T’s guidelines dated 18.3.1988 and 3.10.1989, which are stated to be mandatory in nature, and consider the case of applicant for promotion to the post of Director (Conservation) in accordance with the fresh/amended Recruitment Rules and also to direct the respondents to withdraw the requisition as sent by them to the office of respondent No. 4 for filling up the post of Director (Conservation) by way of direct recruitment.
2. The bare minimum facts on which the reliefs as spelt out above are sought to rest reveal that the applicant was initially recruited to the post of Deputy Superintending Archeological Engineer as a result of selection conducted by Union Public Service Commission and joined the said post in August, 1979 and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Superintending Archeological Engineer in December, 2002. The cadre strength of the post of Superintending Archeological Engineer was raised from two to nine vide order dated 7.10.2003 (Annexure A-3). Since the cadre strength of the feeder post of Director (Conservation) had been raised to nine, the case of applicant is that Column 10 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Director (Conservation) which prescribes as ‘By Promotion, failing which by direct recruitment’ would be contrary to law and thus need to be set aside.
3. At one point of time, cadre strength of Superintending Archeological Engineer was two in number but once the cadre strength was increased from two to nine vide letter dated 7.10.2003 (Annexure A/3), immediately the Government of India instructions dated 18.3.1988 read with the Govt. of India instructions dated 3.10.1989 would come into play resulting into a case of mandatory review of the Recruitment Rules is further the case of applicant. The respondents have advertised the post of Director (Conservation) on 28.5.2005 to which the applicant submitted a legal notice on 2.7.2005. He also made a representation in the office of Union Public Service Commission and requested not to conduct direct recruitment because of the reasons explained in the representation. However, the respondents did not give any reply or dealt with the notice or his representation and, therefore, the present Original Application for the reliefs as mentioned above, has been filed.
4. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for applicant states that in the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that a review of existing Recruitment Rules for the post of Director (Conservation) is pending. The case of the applicant is that the new Rules now proposed to be amended, if they come into force; he would have a right to be considered for the post. The counsel representing the applicant contends that post, which fell vacant in 2002, has not been filled up till date. The advertisement for the post was published on 28.5.2005 by the Union Public Service Commission and in these circumstances, counsel contends that the only relief, he would press upon for the time being, would be that the legal notice issued by the applicant be considered and appropriate orders may be passed thereon, leaving it to the respondents to amend the existing Recruitment Rules or not.
5. Mrs. Rekha Pali, learned Counsel appearing for respondents contends that even if the Recruitment Rules are amended, applicant still may not have a right to be considered for promotion to the post of Director (Conservation).
6. We have heard learned Counsel of the parties and examined the records of the case.
7. It may not be appropriate at this stage to comment upon the rights of applicant for promotion to the post of Director (Conservation) in case the Recruitment Rules are amended. Even though we may hasten to add that it is positive case of the applicant that the amendment of the Recruitment Rules would clothe him with the right for consideration for the post under contention. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the limited relief as sought for by applicant at this stage needs to be allowed. It may be recalled that the post fell vacant way back in December 2002, even though it is true that the Tribunal granted interim direction in April, 2006 and because of that the post has not been filled so far but the fact remains that no efforts were made to fill up the post from December, 2002 to May, 2005. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the legal notice sent by the applicant should be dealt with in accordance with law. We make it abundantly clear that we are not going into the merits of the case and it is open for the respondents to frame new Recruitment Rules or not to do so, as it may think expedient, the only direction given to the respondents is to respond to the legal notice of the applicant by giving appropriate reply as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three weeks from today. During this period, only we direct the respondents not to complete the procedure for filling up the post, which started vide advertisement issued in May, 2005.
8. This Original Application is allowed to the limited extent as mentioned above. No costs.