Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1873 (DEL)

Union of India v. D. P. Chetal

2007-11-07

A.K.SIKRI, VIPIN SANGHI

body2007
Judgment A.K. SIKRI, J. .1. Challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 20.10.2000 passed in OA No. 172/1999 where by application of the respondent No.1 herein has been allowed the present writ petition has been filed. To recapitulate, in brief, the facts of the case, we may state that the case relates to regular promotion of respondent No.1 to the post of JAG of TTS Grade-I. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was promoted as TTS, Grade-II (group-A) on 10.1.1980 and, therefore he was eligible for promotion for the post of TTS Grade-I (group-A) after three years. He was recommended for promotion and his name appeared in the select list circulated on 22.10.1983. However, respondent No.1 did not join the promoted post. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Junior Administrative Grade of TTS Group-A on 17.1.1984 on ad hoc basis. Some vacancies arose for consideration to the said post in the year 1986 and on 3.7.1986 DPC was convened for promotion to junior administrative grade of TTS Group-A on regular basis. Four persons who were even otherwise senior to respondent No.1 were approved for regular promotion. In case of respondent No.1, it was pointed out that he was not eligible as per rules as he did not have three years of approved service in Grade-I. Thereafter in the year 1987-88 further vacancies arose for consideration of promotion on regular basis. The DPC meeting was convened in the years 1989-1994 but could not deliberate on the issue, as it was simply postponed. Ultimately, the DPC for regular promotion to JAG TTS Group-A was held on 11.9.1995 which recommended the case of respondent No.1 for promotion in JAG of TTS Group-A on regular basis. Respondent No.1 was accordingly appointed to JAG TTS Group-A on regular basis with effect from 11.9.1995, the date on which the DPC was convened. Respondent No.1 felt aggrieved by this action of the petitioners inasmuch as he wanted his regular promotion from the date when the vacancy had occurred. In these circumstances, he filed OA before the Tribunal which has been allowed, as mentioned above. Respondent No.1 felt aggrieved by this action of the petitioners inasmuch as he wanted his regular promotion from the date when the vacancy had occurred. In these circumstances, he filed OA before the Tribunal which has been allowed, as mentioned above. Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal would indicate that the Tribunal was of the view that the vacancy in JAG Group-A have to be reckoned on year to year basis and the DPC in question, that was finally convened in the year 1995, was for the vacancies which arose in the years 1981-1988. As far as respondent No.1 was concerned he had already worked on this promoted post with effect from 17.1.1984 and, therefore, it was only a question of regularisation of respondent No.1 to the said post. Having regard to the fact that the vacancies are to be reckoned from year to year basis and the vacancies in question for which respondent No.1 was recommended for promotion on regular basis was for the year 1987-1988, the Tribunal directed that benefit of regularisation has to be given to the petitioner for the year of vacancy, i.e. 1987-1988. 2. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the learned Tribunal. We may note that in support of this view the Tribunal has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Vipin Chandra Hiralal Shah 1997 (1) SC SLJ 54 and the relevant extract quoted from the said judgment is as under: Therefore, while upholding the judgement of the Tribunal that the respondent is entitled to seek fresh consideration on the basis that the selection should be made for vacancies occurring in each year separately, but in substitution of the directions given by the Tribunal in that regard the following directions are given: (1)The number of vacancies falling in the quota prescribed for promotion of State Civil Service Offices to the service shall be determined separately for each year in respect of the period from 1980 to 1986. (2)The State Civil Service Officers who have been appointed to the Service on the basis of the impugned select list of December, 1986/January, 1987 and were senior to the respondent in the State Civil Service shall be adjusted against the vacancies so determined on year wise basis. (2)The State Civil Service Officers who have been appointed to the Service on the basis of the impugned select list of December, 1986/January, 1987 and were senior to the respondent in the State Civil Service shall be adjusted against the vacancies so determined on year wise basis. (3)After such adjustment, if all the vacancies in a particular year or years are filled by the officers referred to in paragraph (2), no further action need to be taken in respect of those vacancies for the said year/years. (4)But, if after such adjustment vacancy/vacancies remain in a particular year/years during the period from 1980 to 1986, notional Select List/Lists shall be prepared separately for that year/years on a consideration of all eligible officers falling within the zone of consideration determined on the basis of the vacancies of the particular year. (5)If the name of the respondent is included in the notional Select List/Lists prepared for any particular year/years during the period 1980 to 1986 and if he is so place in the order of merit so as to have been entitled to be appointed against a vacancy of that particular year, he be appointed to the service against that vacancy of that year with all consequential benefits. .3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.N. Premachandran vs. State of Kerala and Ors., 2004(1) All India Services Law Journal 229 reiterating the aforesaid view. He has also referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2004(1) Administrative Total Judgments 112, also taking the same view. 4. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion as he had refused the promotion given earlier on 22.10.1983 and as per the recruitment rules three years service is need in Grade-A service. This contention is totally irrelevant in the facts of this case. No doubt respondent No.1 refused the promotion on 20.10.1983. It was precisely for this reason that when the DPC was earlier convened on 3.7.1986 for the vacancies of the year 1986-87, the respondent was not recommended for promotion. This contention is totally irrelevant in the facts of this case. No doubt respondent No.1 refused the promotion on 20.10.1983. It was precisely for this reason that when the DPC was earlier convened on 3.7.1986 for the vacancies of the year 1986-87, the respondent was not recommended for promotion. However for the vacancy which arose in the year 1987-1988, respondent had admittedly become eligible and it is because of this reason only that respondent was considered and found eligible for promotion for the vacancy of that year, on regular basis. 5. The petition, therefore, is totally devoid of any merit and is dismissed.