Ravi v. Union of India

1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing the complete record of the learned Tribunal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

3. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 11200/2025 & CM APPL. 46019/2025

4. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2498/2025, titled Vijay Ram Meena v. Union of India, through General Manager Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi & Ors., whereby the O.A. filed by the respondent no.5 herein was disposed of by recording the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent nos.[1] to 4 herein that the Review Departmental Promotion Committee (‘DPC’) shall be conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not made a party to the O.A. filed by the respondent no.5. He submits that the petitioner had earlier filed O.A. No. 1986/2022, titled Ravi v. Union of India & Ors., before the learned Tribunal, which was disposed of by an Order dated 01.08.2022, inter alia, with a direction to the respondent nos.[1] to 4 to consider the representations of the petitioner against his ACR. The petitioner then filed another O.A., being O.A. No.3336/2022, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide its Order dated 28.11.2023, inter alia, directing that a Review DPC be conducted to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, and in case there is no post available, the respondent nos. 1 to 4 shall create a supernumerary post for the petitioner, in case he is found suitable. The challenge by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 against the said direction was dismissed by this Court vide its Judgment dated 29.08.2024, passed in W.P.(C) 11905/2024, titled Union of India, through General Manager Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi & Ors. v. Ravi. He submits that even the review against the said Judgment was dismissed by this Court vide its Order dated 17.01.2025.

6. He submits that it is pursuant to the above direction of the learned Tribunal that the Review DPC was being conducted by the respondent nos. 1 to 4. He submits that in case the respondent no.5 had any grievance against the same, he ought to have impleaded the petitioner in the O.A. filed by him, and the petitioner should have been granted an opportunity of hearing.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. We find that the learned Tribunal has disposed of the O.A. filed by the respondent no.5 by merely recording the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 that the Review DPC would be convened strictly in accordance with the rules and guidelines. We fail to appreciate how anyone can have a grievance against the same. The present petition appears to be motivated by some other consideration.

9. The petition, along with the pending applications, is accordingly dismissed.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J JULY 30, 2025/sg/DG