Thursday, August 13, 2009

CAT directions "No to frauds "

M.A 417/2008
OA 124/2003
With C.P. 217/2005
Present: Shri M.K.Bharadwaj, Counsel for applicants in
Shri S.Ragappa, Cousel for applicant in CP 217/2005.
Shri.V.K.Rao with Mrs Nidhi Bisaria, counsel for respondents (Prasar Bharati)
Shri S.K.Dubey along with Deepak Kumar, counsel for respondents(UOI).
Contempt petitions arise from the orders passed in O.A. No.2343/2001 and connected cases. To appreciate the situation it may be required of us to take notice of the operative portion of the judgment, especially, paragraph 20 thereof. It is extracted herein below.
“Having regard to the discussions made above, both OAs are allowed and impugned order dated 25.08.2000 is declared illegal as the same has been passed without giving option to the Programme Executive whether they are being considered for production cadre or for management cadre Respondents are further directed to conduct review DPC and also give an option to the officers belonging to programme executive cadre whether they want to go to Programme Management Cadre or for Production cadre and the DPC will also consider their option and may allocate the cadre to be allocated and recommended by the DPC as per rules. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months but in the meanwhile officers who are working on production side or on production programme cadre, they should not be disturbed till the exercise is completed. OA is accordingly disposed of”.
2. The review DPC was to take note of the options of the officers, viz whether they wanted to go to Programme Management Cadre or to Production cadre and was to be allocated the cadre as per rules.
3. There was delay in such exercise and contempt petition had been filed. The latest affidavits filed by the UOI as well as the DG, AIR indicate that the matters have been referred to the UPSC and the final selection process is in progress.
4. The respondents had further disclosed their stand that the competent authority had decided to treat the seniority/eligibility list of the officers concerned as on 1.9.1992. According to the learned counsel for respondents scope as coming within a review DPC can be only on the above lines. But , however, Mr. Rajappa, counsel and some of the applicants, who had appeared in person in CP 217/2005, as well as Mr, Bharadwaj, counsel for applicants in CP 131/2007 submit that the combined list annexed to the reply affidavit dated 24.7.2007 is the one decided to be placed before the UPSC. It could not have been acted upon when the rule position was to be taken notice of Schedule IV and V of the relevant rules according to them specifically indicated that for promotion to the JTS cadre list of officers in the feeder category such as Programme Executives and Farm Radio and Extension Officers were to be finalized only taking note of their date of appointment in regular basis in the relevant pay scale. Date of regularization indeed was to have strict relevance. But as of now a number of persons whose claims might have been considered by the UPSC, could not have hoped to include their names in the list as some of them had not been regularly appointed on the date of reckoning, although the list presented is prepared as if they had regular service. If the UPSC acts upon this the entire efforts so far taken by the applicants are liable to be infructuous. The list is also forwarded as above, according to them to help the ineligibles.
5. In contempt proceedings, the Tribunal is expected to examine whether or not there is contumacious conduct. Generally it is not expected that weight of the Tribunal is applied at every stage of consideration of the claim. The end result has to waited. But however, a stitch in time may save further complications and if there are sufficient materials to show that ineligible names are presented before the UPSC, the entire exercise becomes futile. The respondents are not expected to go technically and are not empowered to do something which is not in consonance with Rules.
6. As an extraordinary step, we direct the second respondent, DG,AIR and 3rd respondent Director General (Doordarshan) to file separate affidavits stating whether or not the list presented before the UPSC for consideration by the review DPC(Annexure D)contains the names of only personnel who could be considered as eligible , and had enjoyed regular appointment in the concerned grade as shown in Annexure D. In other words, it should be made clear as to whether the date of regular appointment shown in column 5 of Annexure D of the candidates are supported by authentic proceedings in their personnel records giving them such status, with effect from the dates as seen assigned.
Affidavits are to be filed before 31.8.2009.
(Shailendra Pandey) (M.Ramachandran)
Member (A)