Sh. Rajeev Kesarwani vs Union Of India Through on 18 December, 2014
25. The second judgment on which the applicants have placed their reliance is that of Sahadev Singh vs UoI & Ors (Supra) where the petitioners were promoted Assistant Commissioners (Crops) who were to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (Crops). The Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Commissioner (Crops) provided that an Assistant Engineer (Crops) with 5 years of regular service with the Degree of Agriculture and Post Graduate in Agriculture with specialization in Agronomy/Plant Breeding and Genetics from a recognised university could be considered for the post of Deputy Commissioner (Crops). Admittedly, the petitioners in that case were not eligible for the 2 vacancies that arose on 4.4.2004 and 15.5.2004 for the reason of not meeting the qualifying service clause. OA No 2125/2005 was filed by the petitioners seeking promotion w.e.f. 28.6.2004. No DPC was held for the year 2005 but instead it was held in the year 2006 promoting the petitioners as Deputy Commissioner (Crops) w.e.f. 4.10.2006. The said OA no. 2125/2005 was declined on the ground that though an employee has the right to be considered for promotion he had no right to demand promotion. It was admitted position that none was eligible in the year 2005; 1st of January was the relevant date for reckoning; the petitioners were eligible for being considered for the year 2005; and no junior had been promoted over their heads. The Honble Delhi High Court considered the OM Nos 22011/9/98-Estt. (D) dated 8.9.1998 read with OM of even No. dated 13.10.1998 prescribing a model calendar for promotion and laying down the consequences of deviance therefrom vide OM dated 14.12.2000 .