,c' 1 $-10&11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + w.P.(c) 27912009 CSSS GAZETTED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner Through Mr.A.K.Jha, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..,. Respondents Through Mr.R.V.SInha, Mr.R.N.Singh, Mr. A.S.S|ngh, Advs. for R-1. Mr.A.K.Behra, Adv. for R-2&3. Mr.L.R.Khatana, Adv. for R- 4 to 6. + w.P.(c) 847L12009 PATANJALI SHARMA & ANR, ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Mukul Talwar, Adv. versus UOI & ORS. .... Respondents Through Mr.R.V.S|nha, Mr.R.N.Singh, Mr. A.S.Singh, Advs. for R-l. Mr.A.K.Behra, Adv. for R-2&3. Mr.L.R.Khatana, Adv. for R- 4 to 6, CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTTCE MOOL CHAND GARG ORDER L4.09,2010 1. Reliefs sought by the two writ petitioners who were the joint applicants before the Tribunal in OA No.2793l2005 read as under:- W.P.(C) 27912009 & 847U2009 page 1 of 4 o/o Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified / "ln view of the facts and circumstances stated in paras 4 & 5 the applicants most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to: (i) Quash the order No.2Il4Il2OO5-CS.l dated 29.07.05 passed by the DOP&T and declare the same as ultra virus the constitutional provision and CSS Rules L962 and Regulation L964 framed thereunder; (ii) Further direct the respondents to promote the petitioners in adequate numbers from PS to PPS in their own cadre and also consider them for ad hoc promotion/ upgradation to the Grade I of CSS, as is being extended to the Section Officers; (iii) Pass such further/ other orders/ directions (3)/ relief (s) which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice." 2. The reliefs were premised on the averments that as per sub- Rule 2 of Rule L2 of the Central Secretariat Service Rules L962 feeder cadre for promotion in Grade I (post of Under Secretary) was Section Officers having not less than 8 years approved service in the Grade of Section Officers and regular officers of Grade A & B (merged) of the Central Secretariat Stenographers service in respect whereof a policy decision was notified on 27.09.2005. 3. The policy decision reads as under:- "Sub: Lateral entry of Stenographers belonging to CSSS in the grades of Section Officer & Under Secretary of CSS. The Government had set up a 'Group of Officers" on Cadre Structure of Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS), in October, 2003. The Group submitted a report in February, 2004. The Report of the 'Group' has been considered by the Government and inter-alia the following decisions have been taken; w.P.(c) 27 9t2009 & 847 Lt2009 page 2 of 4 (i) to discontinue the lateral entry of CSSS officers into Central Secretariat Service (CSS) at the level of Under Secretary of CSS., (ii) To allow any those Stenographer Grade 'C' who are graduates to participate in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the Section Officer's Grade of CSS. 2. Necessary notification relating to amendment to the CSS Rules will be issued separately." 4. Grievance raised was that the policy decision could not over- ride the statutory rules. 5. lt is apparent that said plea impacted prayer (i). 6. Before noting further, we take on record the statement of learned counsel for the petitioners herein that the petitioners were pressing only prayer (i) and not the other two prayers. 7. lt is apparent that the policy decision realizes the necessity of amending the CCS Rules and that is the reason why in para 2 thereof it has been specifically recorded that the implementation of the Policy decision would be with reference to the amendment to the CCS Rules. 8. Thus, the question of declaring the Policy decision 27.09.2005 as ultra virus the Constitution does not arise for the simple reason the Executive always have the power to amend the recruitment rules. Needless to state if the amendment to the recruitment rules results in discrimination to somebody, that somebody, would have the locus standi to question what has been done. 9. But if this is the grievance, entirely different issues arises for consideration. 10. Faced with the aforesaid situation coupled with the fact that learned counsel for the respondents point out to us that implementing the policy decision necessary notifications have been issued amending Rule 12 of the CCS Rules on 01.02.2008 and in respect w.P.(c) 27 9 t2OO9 & 847 L|2OO9 page 3 of 4 to whereof three Original Applications, being OA No.3310/2009, OA No, 166712008 and OA No.267412009 have been filed, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitions may be disposed of clarifying that the observations in the impugned order dated 24.04.2008 wherein the Tribunal has made certain observations which tend to justify the amendments to be made, be declared as not binding and also the observations made in the order dated 09.01.2009 dismissing RA No.18412008 wherein review of the order dated 24.04.2008 was declined. 11. Reason why the aforesaid request has been made is that the substantive issues pertaining to in what manner should promotions be effected till the recruitment rules were formally notified and whether the rules as notified are discriminatory would be adjudicated in OA No.3310/2OOg, OA No. 1667 l2OO8 and OA No,267 4t2009. L2. We agree. 13. Accordingly we dispose of the writ petition declaring that the observations made in the impugned order dated 24.04.2008 and 09.01.2009 which impact the notification dated 0L.02.2008 would not be taken into account by the Tribunal when OA No.33L012009, OA No. 1667 l20OB and 267 412009 are decided. L4. Needless to state issues of bar of limitation, res-judicata etc. if raised by way of defense in the pleadings of the respondents to the said OAs would be considered by the Tribunal as also the merits of defense as per law. 15. The petitions stands disposed of. -fi? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J a. SEPTEMBER L4,?OLO ag w.P.(c) 27912009 & 847Li2oog page 4 of 4