9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to reversion order based on promotion conditions, government policy on reserved category employees, and backlog justification. Analysis: 1. Challenge based on promotion conditions: The petitioners contested the reversion order citing the promotion granted with conditional relaxation of qualification. The authority's power to grant such relaxation was examined under Rule 5(2) of the Recruitment Rules. The court emphasized that the rule allows relaxation of qualifications without imposing restrictions. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, it was clarified that statutory powers must be exercised as provided, without additional limitations. The court held that the authority was justified in imposing a three-year period for passing the professional examination as a condition for promotion, which the petitioners failed to meet, justifying their reversion. 2. Government policy on reserved category employees: The petitioners argued against reversion based on a government resolution stating that members of backward classes should not be reverted if their representation in the promotion cadre meets the prescribed percentage of reservation. The court analyzed the resolution's context, highlighting that it pertained to specific situations like reversions due to post abolition or repatriation of senior persons. The resolution did not apply to cases of non-compliance with required qualifications or conditions attached to promotions. The court emphasized that promotions should be based on merit and qualifications, not solely on vacancy considerations or reservation percentages. 3. Backlog justification for reversion: The petitioners also raised the issue of sufficient backlog, contending that it did not justify their reversion. The court reviewed the government resolution and a circular but found no justification for allowing promotees to continue without meeting specified conditions. The court reiterated that promotions should be based on qualifications and compliance with conditions, regardless of backlog considerations. 4. Discrimination challenge: The petitioners raised a discrimination claim, but the court noted that it was not part of the original pleadings and could not be introduced in the rejoinder. The court highlighted that new grounds should not be added in the rejoinder as it expands the scope of the petition unfairly. Consequently, the discrimination claim was not considered due to procedural reasons. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that there was no basis for interference in the reversion order. The petitioners' failure to meet promotion conditions and the absence of legal grounds to support their continued occupancy in promoted positions led to the dismissal of their challenge.
|
