Dharambir Dhan v. Union of India

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 13154/2025 & CM APPL. 53913/2025

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.2444/2021, titled Dharambir Dhan v. Union of India through its Secretary & Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein.

3. The petitioner had filed the above O.A., contending therein that he was appointed as Senior Technical Assistant (STA) (Soil Conservation) Grade-II with the respondent no.1 in the year 2019. He was placed at

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                   Serial No.4.                                                                 │
│ Signature Not Verified                                                                         │
│ Digitally Signed    W.P.(C) 13154/2025                                           Page 1 of 4   │
│ By:REYMON VASHIST                                                                              │
│ Signing Date:01.09.2025                                                                        │
│ 18:41:12                                                                                       │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                   4.     On completion of five years of regular service as STA Grade-II,       │
│                   the petitioner became entitled to promotion to the post of STA Grade-        │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the above O.A. before the learned Tribunal, which, as noted hereinabove, has been dismissed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the composite method, the departmental candidates are to be considered along with the outsiders. Once the DPC found that none of the outsiders had met the prescribed benchmark for the appointment, and only the two departmental candidates remained to be considered, their inter se seniority ought to have been taken into account and the normal rules of promotion applied. He submits that, therefore, the proceedings of the DPC were erroneous and liable to be set aside.

7. He further submits that the respondents had admitted before the learned Tribunal that the rules are silent with respect to the selection/non-selection category and, therefore, it was for the learned Tribunal to determine whether the DPC had adopted the correct procedure while considering the case of the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent no.2.

8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, find no merit in the same.

9. In the present case, the DPC has considered the case of the petitioner and the respondent no.2 by making an assessment on the basis of their service particulars, experience, APARs, etc., and by grading these officers, which has also been examined by the learned Tribunal in the Impugned Order, while observing as under: