Attaullah Khan v. Satyawati College & Anr.

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs: “a. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the DPC Decision dated 11.10.2019; b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to convene the DPC and consider the ease of the Petitioner for promotion with effect from the date when the vacancy arose for the post i.e. December 2014. ”

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are that Petitioner joined the office of Respondent No. 1 as an Office Assistant and was promoted as Junior Assistant on 25.05.1990 and as an Assistant (UDC) on 22.06.2009. Petitioner was thereafter officiating as Senior Assistant, as the post fell vacant on 22.07.2011.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was eligible for promotion as Senior Assistant in June, 2012 under the unamended Recruitment Rules and till 2014, there were three sanctioned posts to be filled up by the mode of promotion. Two persons senior to the Petitioner namely, Sashi Bhushan Verma and Panni Ram were promoted against the two posts on 17.10.2014, however, no DPC was convened for considering the Petitioner. When Respondent No. 1/College issued an advertisement on 16.12.2016 for two posts to be filled by Direct Recruitment, Petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P.(C) No. 689/2017, seeking a direction for quashing the advertisement and holding DPC for consideration of the Petitioner under the promotion quota. The writ petition was disposed of on 14.03.2018 directing Respondent No.2/University to forward the name of an expert to Respondent No.1/College, and a direction to the College to ensure that DPC is convened within six weeks to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion also taking on record the submission of the Petitioner that he was the only one who had qualified the Limited Department Examination.

4. It is further averred by the Petitioner that when the directions passed by the Court were not complied with, he was constrained to file a contempt petition being CONT. CAS.

(C) No. 652/2018. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, Petitioner was given a letter dated 27.09.2019, whereby he was asked to inform the status of FIR No. 0329 dated 22.06.2015, filed by one Dr. Sudhir Kumar Goel, under Section 154 Cr.P.C. as well as any other case pending against him. Petitioner also received another letter dated 07.10.2019 from the Administrative Officer, informing him that an e-mail dated 06.10.2019 had been received from one Mr. Anil Kumar, stating that Mr. Harkesh had filed a case against the Petitioner under Registration No.4923/2018 in Rohini Court and as per online status, the same was listed on 06.02.2020. Petitioner was asked to explain as to why he had concealed this information. Petitioner, in turn, responded to the letter by stating that he had never received any summons/notice from Rohini Court and had no knowledge of the same.

5. Thereafter, the College convened a DPC on 11.10.2019, for filling up one post of Senior Assistant by LDE as per Recruitment Rules from amongst the serving Assistants who had rendered three years regular service in Pay Level-5. However, consideration was deferred on account of the observation that on scrutiny of the documents, it was found that criminal cases were pending against the Petitioner and Committee sought fresh vigilance clearance before considering the Petitioner for promotion. It is this decision which is impugned by the Petitioner before this Court.

6. Stand of Respondent No. 1/College is that as per the unamended Recruitment Rules dated 26.09.2013, method of appointment to the post of Senior Assistant is 25% by promotion failing which by Direct Recruitment, 25% by Direct Recruitment and 50% by Limited Departmental Test. There are three vacant posts of Senior Assistants, out of which one is to be filled by promotion and two by LDE. DPC was convened on 11.10.2019 but case of the Petitioner was not considered due to expiry of the validity of LDE as well as for lack of vigilance clearance.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that on 14.09.2022, Respondent No.1 had sought time to place on record documents showing that it was the Petitioner who was responsible for delay in DPC as he had not furnished complete details of pending criminal cases against him. An affidavit was thereafter filed by Respondent No. 1 reiterating the said stand. It is stated in the affidavit that Petitioner had intimated that there was only one case pending in Rohini Court, but no summons/notice was received by the Petitioner and he had no clue either of the pendency of the case prior to the information sought by Respondent No. 1 and was not even aware of the nature of the allegations/accusations. However, after queries raised by the College, Petitioner enquired into the matter and found that an application had been filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the complainant to register a case against the Petitioner and a few others. It is also stated in the affidavit that amended Recruitment Rules have been approved by the Executive Council on 21.10.2020 in the meantime and thus promotions will be governed by the provisions of the amended Rules.

8. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that there is no criminal case pending against the Petitioner. While he never had any knowledge of the case pending in Rohini Court, however, the present status on the website indicates that due to non-appearance of the complainant the complaint has been dismissed in default. Since the Petitioner was unaware of any such complaint, there is no question of concealment. In any event, with the dismissal of the complaint, there is no impediment in granting vigilance clearance to the Petitioner and consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant.

9. Counsel for Respondent No. 1, per contra, submits that he is unaware of the present status of the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and/or that the same has been dismissed in default. It is stated that even assuming that there is no criminal case against the Petitioner, he cannot be considered under the unamended Recruitment Rules, as in the meantime, amended Recruitment Rules being ‘Recruitment Rules (Non-Teaching Employees), 2020 have been approved by the University on 03.11.2020, in which the mode of recruitment is 50% by promotion, 25% by LDE and 25% by Direct Recruitment and the Petitioner can only be considered as per the Amended RRs.

10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and examined their contentions.

11. Since it is a categorical stand of the Petitioner that he had no information of the pendency of the complaint against him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as no summons/notice have been received by him, which is uncontroverted by Respondent No. 1, it cannot be said that the Petitioner has concealed the pendency of criminal cases against him, as alleged by Respondent No.1. In any event, learned counsel for the Petitioner informs the Court that from the website it is confirmed that the complaint has been dismissed in default on failure of the complainant to appear for the last four dates of hearing. This position has been verified by counsel for Respondent No. 1, during the course of hearing, from the website and is acknowledged to be correct.

12. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the issue with regard to vigilance status of the Petitioner requires to be revisited and reconsidered by Respondent No. 1. Let the exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from today and a decision be taken in this regard. Insofar as the argument of Respondent No. 1 that the Petitioner will now be considered under the amended RRs, 2020 is concerned, suffice would it be to state that Petitioner has filed a separate writ petition being W.P. (C) 3882/2020, in which this issue is under consideration. Therefore, the Court is not entering into the controversy, as to which of the two RRs i.e. the unamended or the amended ones will govern the promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant and the same shall be decided in the appropriate proceedings.

13. Looking at the limited scope and relief claimed in the present petition, the same is disposed of directing Respondent No. 1 to examine the vigilance status of the Petitioner in light of what is stated above and take a decision thereon.

14. Writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned directions.