Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of
JUDGMENT
PREM PRAKASH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.U.Srivastava, Adv. with Ms.Neelima Rathore, Adv.
Through : Mr.Vijay Joshi, Senior Panel Counsel, for R-1/UOI
Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Adv. for R-2 & 3/CBI along with Mr.D.P.
Singh, AO(P), CBI, in person.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.8342/2017 (for restoration, by petitioners)
1. This is an application filed by the petitioners seeking restoration of the writ petition which was dismissed on account of non-appearance and non-prosecution on 30.01.2017.
2. Notice. Learned counsels for the respondents accept the notice.
3. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number and file.
4. Application stands disposed of. 2017:DHC:1606-DB W.P. (C) No.5497/2002
5. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟) dated 11.07.2001 by which an OA filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
6. The necessary fact to be noticed for disposl of the writ petition are that the petitioners were working as LDCs in the Central Bureau of Investigation („CBI‟). The next avenue for promotion from LDC was to the post of UDC. As per the relevant recruitment rules, 75% of the vacancies are filled up by promotion on the basis of Seniority-cum- Fitness, failing which by deputation and transfer, and 25% vacancies are filled up by promotion through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination („LDCE‟).
7. The complaint of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that despite having appeared and qualified the examination which was conducted on 9/10.01.1993, the petitioners were not granted promotion, despite the vacancies being available. The Tribunal dismissed the OA primarily on the ground that the vacancies available had been filled up and since the petitioners were ranked below in merit, they were not granted promotion.
8. The consistent stand of the petitioners before the Tribunal as also before this Court is that in all, 117 promotions were made and 25% of 117 would be 39, while only 13 vacancies were filled up from the LDCE Quota. The petitioners upon qualifying the exams stood at Serial Nos.16, 22, 25, 28 & 35 respectively and were thus entitled to promotion.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that up to 1993, there were 81 vacancies in all, out of which 61 vacancies were filled up keeping the criteria of promotion and remaining 25% were filled up on the basis of the examination conducted.
11. Since the short question which arises for consideration is whether despite the vacancies being available, the petitioners have been deprived of promotion. Mr.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for CBI has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the respondents before the Tribunal.
12. We note that a specific affidavit was filed by the respondents before the Tribunal giving the year-wise vacancies and the manner in which they were filled. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as under:
13. The vacancies can be tabulated as under: YEAR TOTAL VACANCIES OCCURRED TOTAL VACANCIES FILLED 75% Seniority Quota 25% Examination Quota Total Vacancies 75% Seniority Quota 25% Examination Quota Total Vacancies 1990 -- -- -- -- 9 9 1991 29 10 39 23 0 23 1992 28 9 37 21 0 21 1993 4 1 5 12 10 22 TOTAL 61 20 81 56 19 75
14. Having regard to the affidavit placed on record before the Tribunal as also before this Court and the year-wise quota which has been extracted hereinabove, it leaves no room for doubt that the respondents had filled up the vacancies maintaining the ratio between the seniority quota and examination quota and since the petitioners were not high up in the merit list, they could not have been granted promotion; as has been rightly held by the Tribunal.
15. At this stage, Mr.Srivastava submits that some vacancies may have fallen post 1993 and thus, the petitioners would be eligible for the same. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that no such ground was ever raised or agitated before the Tribunal. We agree with the submission of the counsel for the respondents that any discrepancy in filling vacancies post 1993 would be outside the scope of the present proceedings.
16. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
17. No costs.
G. S. SISTANI, J.
VINOD GOEL, J. MARCH 17, 2017 // /ka