Full Text
Date of Order: May 07, 2018 WP (C) No. 4854/2018 & CM No. 18658/2018
SHRI KAANCHAN AZAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Asish Nischal with Mr. Arun Nischal, Advocates
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, GNCTD
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with Mr. Sanjay Pal, Advocate for R-4
JUDGMENT
1. In terms of DoPT’s Circular of 25th April, 1989, respondent/NCT of Delhi had consulted first respondent on the proposal for de-reservation of vacancy reserved for SC candidate in the quota for promotion to the post of Deputy Director in Directorate of Information and Publicity of Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Vide impugned Communication of 17th October, 2017 (Annexure P-7) first respondent has not agreed to the proposal for de-reservation of the said vacancy and has advised respondent-NCT of Delhi to fill up the reserved post by way of direct recruitment or by way of deputation for a short time, till availability of reserved candidate in the grade. 2018:DHC:2981
2. To assail the impugned order (Annexure P-7), learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to office noting of respondent- NCT of Delhi (Annexure P-5) to point out that in the next ten years, no SC candidate will be available for promotion to the post of Deputy Director with respondent no.3 and the post of Deputy Director needs to be de-reserved as there cannot be any reservation in promotion quota. To submit so, reliance is placed upon decision of a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in M Nagraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner refers to Chapter 7 of the DoPT’s guidelines (Annexure P-6) to submit that the post in question needs to be de-reserved and petitioner’s case for promotion on the de-reserved post ought to be considered by respondent-Govt. Of NCT of Delhi as petitioner is the senior most information officer.
4. Despite service of advance notice, none appears on behalf of first respondent.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition and the application with permission to petitioner to make a concise Representation to respondent-NCT of Delhi within a week to seek de-reservation of the post of Deputy Director in question. On receipt of said Representation, respondent-NCT of Delhi shall pass a speaking order thereon within a period of six weeks, without being influenced by impugned order and in light of Supreme Court’s decision in M Nagraj (Supra) and shall proceed in terms of Chapter 7 of the DoPT guidelines and the fate of Representation be made known to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy as available in law, if need be. Such a course is adopted because impugned order is a mere recommendation and does not have a binding effect.
6. With the aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for petitioner and respondent-NCT of Delhi.
JUDGE MAY 07, 2018 P