B Asok Kumar vs ATOMIC MINERALS DIRECTORATE FOR EXPLORATION AND RESEARCH on 6 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD (TELANGANA) NO. 5-10-193, 1ST FLOOR, HACA BHAVAN,HYDERABAD - 500004 Order Sheet Item no.: 22 O.A./921/2025 (TELANGANA) [ PROMOTION ] [ SENIOR CITIZEN ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 7 Order Dated: 06/10/2026 B ASOK KUMAR Vs ATOMIC MINERALS DIRECTORATE FOR EXPLORATION AND RESEARCH

For Applicant(s) Advocate : DR S GOVERDHAN RAO

For Respondent(s) Advocate : B GAYATRI VARMA Order of The Tribunal In the instant O.A., the respondents were directed to produce the result/minutes of the DPC for the years 2017 and 2021. On perusal of the same, the records are found to be incomplete, inasmuch as, in terms of the RRs, the stipulation for which we draw reference to Note 2 which is as under: “Note 2.- Eligible officers are required to appear for written exam followed by interview and the marks obtained in the written examination shall be taken into consideration by the selection committee while recommending the names for empanelment.” The applicant appeared in the subsequent examination also in 2021; however, the marks obtained in the selection panel, either in the written examination or in the interview, have not been placed on record. Let the results of all the applicants who qualified and were considered by the Selection Committee, including that of his immediate junior, be produced in a sealed cover, along with the details of the marks obtained by them, as well as their respective categories. It is also noticed Office memorandum dt. 30.01.2015 which reads as under:

(iii) The officers who have already been empanelled or placed in the extended panel but could not be promoted due to these vacancies not actually becoming available; need not be re-assessed by the supplementary DPC as the assessment matrix remains the same. They may be appointed against the additional vacancies of the same vacancy year as per recommendations of the earlier DPC. In such situation the number of vacancies for supplementary DPC shall be accordingly adjusted." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, since the applicant had already qualified in the initial selection process in 2017 and was placed in the extended panel, there was no requirement for him to undergo the written examination again. Though he voluntarily participated in the selection process in 2021, the result of his earlier selection ought to have been considered and he ought not to have been reassessed by requiring him to appear in the written examination in a subsequent selection, particularly when, at the relevant point of time in 2015, he was deprived of a vacancy. It is also to be noticed that the respondents ought to explain, by way of an affidavit, as to how the applicant was considered under both the General and SC categories, including the other two candidates. Though it appears that the notification revising the RRs came into effect on 16.08.2024, the selection in question ought to have been made under the Rules of 2000.

Let the Rules also be produced on the next date of hearing for our perusal. List the case on 22.11.2026.

Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi Member (A) MR MANISH GARG Member (J) Prachi Bhaskar ( court master )