Nitesh Kumar Singh; Aliza Alam; Mohnish Sehrawat v. K. U. Siddique

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the Order dated 16.05.2005 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 834/2004, titled Dr. K. U. Siddique v. Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors., allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following directions:

he shall be granted promotion will all the consequential benefits at par with his juniors. It is further directed that the consideration for promotion of the applicant shall be done on the basis of the same material/norm as was considered for promoting the other 25 Lecturers to the post of Reader under the Merit Promotion Scheme, 1987. The needful shall be done by the Respondents within 3 months. Parties, however, shall bear their own costs.”

2. Giving a brief background of the facts in which the present petition arises, the respondent joined the Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College as Junior Lecturer in the faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines on 06.07.1978, to which post he was confirmed on 06.07.1981.

3. Subsequently, by a Resolution dated 03/06.03.1986, the post of Junior Lecturer and Senior Lecturer were amalgamated into a single cadre designated as Lecturer in the UGC pay scale of Rs. 700-1300. Thereafter, Merit Promotion Scheme, 1987 was amended on 20.05.1996, providing that the person at the post of Lecturer, if found fit by the Screening Committee, would be eligible for promotion to the post of Reader in pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 or Lecturer in Senior Scale of Rs. 3000-5000.

4. The respondent along with others were considered by the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 11.12.1996 for promotion to the scale of Reader, however, his case was kept in a sealed cover along with the three other officers. The sealed cover was finally opened on 21.06.1999, and the respondent having been found eligible for the Lecturer Senior scale, was given the said scale vide Order dated 21.06.1999. In the said Order, it was incorrectly mentioned that he was being promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer, which post no longer existed, however, it was also mentioned that he was being placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 3000-5000 (pre-revised) w.e.f. 01.12.1996, which was the pay-scale in the Merit Promotion Scheme, 1987 as amended on 20.05.1996.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent submitted the representations, which were rejected by the petitioners vide Orders dated 27.03.2003 and 03.02.2004. Aggrieved by these Orders, the respondent filed the above O.A. before the learned Tribunal.

6. The learned Tribunal, vide the Impugned Order, has allowed the O.A. in terms of the above quoted directions, observing therein that there is no post of Senior Lecturer in view of the amalgamation of the post of Lecturer and Senior Lecturer vide Resolution No. 17 dated 03/06.03.1986. The learned Tribunal, after perusing the Minutes of the Meeting of the Screening Committee, further found that the case of the respondent was not placed before the Department Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘DPC’) for consideration of his promotion to the post of Lecturer in Senior Scale. There was also no material placed before the Screening Committee for justifying the exclusion of the respondent’s name for promotion to the post of Reader. It was also observed that the material that was taken into account by the Screening Committee for denying the promotion to the respondent was an alleged complaint against the respondent while he was working as a Hostel Superintendent during which certain adverse remarks were made against him for his alleged indiscipline and irresponsible behaviour. The learned Tribunal, however, found that there was no record to show that any departmental enquiry was held against the respondent or that the alleged remarks made by the Chairman of the Board, in writing or in form of any report in that regard. was placed before the Screening Committee. The learned Tribunal further observed that there was also no record to show that the Screening Committee had considered any other material before making the recommendation against the respondent.

7. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the respondent was not found fit for promotion to the post of Reader by the Department Promotion Committee. She submits that, therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in interfering with the decision of the DPC.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent was wrongfully denied promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader on the basis of material that was never disclosed to him. He submits that although the respondent had been rated as ‘below average’ in his Confidential Report, the same was never communicated to him and, therefore, could not have been relied upon by the DPC to deny him promotion. In support of this contention, he places reliance on the Judgment of Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725.

10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

11. From the reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal in OA filed by the respondent, it is apparent that the DPC had taken into account material that was never disclosed to the respondent. There was also no record of the alleged adverse remarks made by the Chairman of the Board against the respondent, let alone any evidence of such remarks being communicated to him for eliciting his response. Furthermore, no departmental enquiry was held with respect to the said allegations.

12. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the Order passed by the learned Tribunal.

13. The petition along with the pending application is, accordingly, dismissed.