Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: - 02.02.2024
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Akshay Amritanshu, SPC
Through: Mr.P.B.A.Srinivasan, Mr.V.Arvind, Ms.Srishti Bansal, Mr.Sumit Swami, Advocates
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA REKHA PALLI, J(ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 23.02.2012 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No.3091/2010. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the Original Application preferred by the respondents by directing the petitioner to examine the case of each of the respondents, along with other eligible officers of DPA Grade A, for promotion to the post of DPA Grade-B against each vacancy year w.e.f. 1995. The Tribunal has further directed that in case any of them are found eligible for promotion against a vacancy for any year prior to 2005, they be granted promotion on notional basis, with those already working on the promotional post on ad hoc be also granted consequential benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned directions to consider the respondents for promotion to the post of DPA Grade-B against vacancies from year 1995. He submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that in fact there was no vacancy in this post for the years prior to 2005. Furthermore, the Recruitment Rules for the said post were notified only in 2010 and therefore no promotions could be made prior thereto. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Tribunal has found that not only were the Model Recruitment Rule available with the petitioners but there were a number of vacancies available since 1998. He further submits that the Tribunal has neither granted promotion to any of the respondents from any particular year nor directed the petitioners to consider them for any particular year, but has merely directed the petitioner to consider the respondents along with other eligible officers of DPA Grade A for promotion to the post of DPA Grade B against vacancies from 1995, as may be available on year to year basis. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.
4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we would begin by noting the relevant extracts of the impugned order as under:
5. From a perusal of the aforesaid extract of the impugned order, we find that, as urged by the respondent, the Tribunal has only directed the petitioners to consider the case of the respondents for promotion from vacancy year 1995 and has not directed grant of promotion from any particular year. This direction, as is evident, has not only been made subject to availability of vacancies but also subject to all other relevant factors including their eligibility. We are, therefore, unable to appreciate the plea of the petitioner that promotions have been directed to be given to the respondents despite there being no vacancy.
6. We also do not find any infirmity with the Tribunal’s conclusion that once Model Recruitment Rules were already available with the petitioner since 1998, the consideration for promotion against the available vacancies for DPA Grade-B could be carried out on the basis of these Recruitment Rules itself.
7. In the light of the aforesaid, once the impugned order only directs the petitioner to consider the cases of the respondents for promotion against available vacancies and that too by taking into all relevant factors, we find no reason to interfere with the same.
8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioners are, as prayed for, granted six weeks time to comply with the impugned order.
(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE (GIRISH KATHPALIA)
JUDGE FEBRUARY 2, 2024