Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs Sanjay Kumar & Others on 30 March, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
Bench: Anil Kumar, Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.17534-36/2005
% Date of Decision: 30.03.2011
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : None.
versus
SANJAY KUMAR & OTHERS .... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No
ANIL KUMAR, J.
The petitioner Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Finance and Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others have challenged the order dated 03.02.2005 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, in O.A. No. 48/2004 titled as "Sanjay Kumar & Others v. Union of India & Others" allowing the Original Application of the respondents and directing the petitioners to convene the DPC to consider the case of the respondents for promotion to the posts of DEO grade B in accordance with rules and instructions and in the event the respondents found fit, to give all the consequential benefits to them. WP(C) 17534-36/2005 Page 1 of 3
The respondents had sought promotion as Data Entry Operators grade B against the vacancies which accrued in 2000 for which the DPC was not held.
The respondents contended that they were appointed as Data Entry Operators, grade A, on regular basis in the year 1995 on different dates and as per Data Entry Operators Recruitment Rules, 1987, they become eligible for promotion to Data Entry Operator Grade B on completion of 5 years of Regular Service in the grade A. The respondents' plea was that they had completed the five years of service in 2000, however, no DPC was held and they could not be promoted.
The Tribunal had held that the respondents had become eligible on 01.01.2001 and vacancies were available, therefore, they had a right to be considered for promotion and the petitioners were liable to hold DPC. Even if the new Rules had not been finalized, the petitioner should have followed the old Rules. The Tribunal also relied upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of Sh. Shankarasan Dash V. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, holding that the decision not to fill up vacancies had to be a bonafide and for appropriate reasons. The Tribunal did not find any bonafide or appropriate reasons recorded by the petitioners for not filling up the vacancies in the year 2001 and thus held that not filling up the vacancies was not legally sustainable.
No-one is present on behalf of the parties.
The petitioners were also directed to complete the record of the writ WP(C) 17534-36/2005 Page 2 of 3 petition by filing record of the Tribunal by order dated 17.01.2008. The record of the Tribunal has also not been filed.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed in default of appearance of the petitioners and their counsel and for non-prosecution.
Interim order dated 09.09.2005 which was made absolute on 20.02.2009 is also vacated.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
MARCH 30, 2011 srb WP(C) 17534-36/2005 Page 3 of 3