Delhi High Court
Ravindra Prasad Jugal vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 February, 2010
Author: Gita Mittal
Bench: Gita Mittal, Vipin Sanghi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3687/1997
Date of decision: 9th February, 2010
RAVINDRA PRASAD JUYAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. R.P. Sharma, Adv.
versus
UOI & ANR ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Barkha Babbar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
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 the Digest?No
GITA MITTAL, J(Oral)
1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 10th July, 1997 passed by the respondent directing cancellation of the limited departmental examination conducted for promotion from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector /Clerk to Sub- Inspector/Clerk in July, 1995, based on the findings of a staff court of inquiry conducted into certain allegations of malpractices in respect thereof.
2. Our attention is drawn to a challenge laid to the same examination by another candidate in W.P.(C) No. 14625/1997 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court which came to be decided by the -2- judgment and order passed on 5th May, 1998. This judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was assailed by the official respondents before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court vide judgment reported as (2005) 8 SCC 180 UOI vs. Joseph P. Cherian. It is undisputed that the issues raised before this court stand covered by the binding pronouncement of the Apex Court aforesaid. The Supreme Court has held that the 1995 examination having been cancelled on account of adoption of unfair means on a large scale, there was no question of any candidate being considered for promotion on the basis of marks secured by him at such an examination. For this reason, the Supreme Court set aside the direction of the High Court that the respondent employee would be considered for promotion to the 86 vacancies which arose subsequent to the examination conducted by the respondents and that the marks secured in the cancelled examination would be taken into consideration.
3. In view of the above, the challenge to the cancellation of the said examination by the petitioners in the present writ petition cannot stand.
4. At this stage, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the -3- petitioner contends that the petitioner became entitled to a time scale promotion after he had undertaken the examination in 1995. He contends that the filing and pendency of the present writ petition ought not to have come in the way of the petitioner being granted the time scale promotion on the date when the petitioner became entitled to the same.
5. Mr. Barkha Babbar, learned counsel for the respondent has very fairly placed a communication dated 30th October, 2009 before us. It has been pointed out there in that so far as the time scale promotion to the post of SI/Clerk is concerned, a candidate was required to have put in eight years service on 1st January immediately proceeding the year in which the vacancy has arisen as per the applicable DOP&T instructions.
6. The following reproduction from this communication would manifest that the petitioner was not eligible for the time scale promotion to the post of SI/Clerk for the vacancies which arose in 1997-1998 :-
"(iv) Since the petitioner was appointed as ASI/Clk wef 10/2/1989, he was not completed 08 years regular service in the grade as on 1st Jan 1997 i.e. cut of date of the vacancy year 1997-98.
(v) Since the petitioner was not completed 08 years regular service as on cut on date of 1st Jan 1997, he was not eligible for consideration for promotion to the rank of SI/Clk during the vacancy -4- year 1997-98.
(vi) As per central seniority list of ASI/Clk circulated on 24 Jan 1997, name of the petitioner stands placed at Srl No. 142. His immediate junior namely ASI/Clk Omprakash (Srl.No.143) and his immediate senior ASI/Clk Anil Kumar (S.No. 134) who have notqualified the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held on 06/07 April, 1998 were promoted to the rank of SI/Clk on normal course on seniority basis wef 09/6/2000 i.e. after 01 year and 08 months from the date of promotion of the petitioner to the rank of SI/Clk through LDCE. Photo copies of relevant pages of Central Seniority List circulated dtd 24 Jan 1997 and 15 Oct 2009 are attached as Annexure-R-1 & R-2.
(vii) In the light of the above, the contention of the petitioner as he was eligible for regular promotion by time scale to the rank of SI/Clerk should have been promoted to the rank of SI/Clerk during the year 1997, promotion on the basis of the departmental examination which was held in 1998 had put him in a disadvantage and made him junior to 152 personnel are incorrect and misleading.
(viii) Since the petitioner was not eligible for consideration for promotion to the rank of SI/Clk during the year 1997 on the basis of time scale, the question of adverse affect in his seniority in the rank of SI/Clk does not arise. The petitioner promoted to the rank of SI/Clk w.e.f. 16/10/1998 through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (fast track promotion) whereas his immediate junior/senior on regular course were promoted to the rank of SI/Clk wef 09/6/2000."
7. The petitioner thus stands promoted with effect from 16th October, 1998 after he successfully undertook the said examination. It is also evident from the above that no person junior to the petitioner has been given a promotion prior to his appointment to -5- the post of Sub-Inspector.
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
GITA MITTAL,J VIPIN SANGHI, J FEBRUARY 09, 2010 kr