Narender Chadha & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 February, 1986
7.4 It has been submitted that the applicant has filed on record at
Annexure A-6 copies of the appointment orders at page Nos.68 -
69 and his transfer orders at Annexure A-7 page Nos.70-71, in
which there is no mention of Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the contention
raised by the respondents is misleading and far from the truth. It
has been further submitted that the appointment orders filed on
record at Annexure A-6 (Pages 68-69) do not show Scheduled
Tribe and in each and every DPCs when the promotions are
34
OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067,
2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98,
99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022
granted, atleast 3 to 5 years confidential reports/APARs are
reviewed and taken into consideration by the DPCs with bench
mark fixed and the employees who come up the required bench
marks and fit only those are selected for promotions which is with
seniority-cum selection or seniority-cum fitness. In view of this,
contention raised by the respondents' department that no
promotions are given on the basis of the selection to the applicant
is totally misleading and cannot be relied.
7.5 It has been submitted that rules of review DPCs do not allow
the respondents' department to issue reversion orders of employees
that too reducing their post three ranks lower than the present rank
nor such orders/directions have been given by this Tribunal in the
order dated 30.11.2013 and no such eventualities about mass
reversions reducing the applicant by 3 ranks of the permanent
employees continuously holding regular promotions years together
for the last more than10 to 15 years was shown in their reply by the
respondents' department before this Tribunal in the allegation in
respect of OA No.2181/2013. Had such eventuality of reversions
of employees consequent on recasting and preparing the post-based
35
OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067,
2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98,
99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022
rosters from the year 1997 till date was expressed before this
Tribunal by the respondents' department at the stage of deciding
the matter in OA No.2181/2013, either this Tribunal or any of the
concerned respondents including the private parties/respondents
would have made objections or accepted provided the reversions
must have been in accordance with law without affecting the
service career of any of the employees and by creating
supernumerary posts as per the law declared by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in judgment dated 11.02.1986 in the case of
Narender Chadha Vs. Union of India (supra) followed in the
judgment dated 11.12.1987 in the case of Karan Singh Vs. Union
of India and mass reversions of the employees including the
applicant would not have been punitive. But to avoid creation of
supernumerary posts, the respondents' department deliberately with
malafide intention suppressed/not disclosed the points of
apprehension of reversions of the employees in their statement
before the Tribunal in OA No.2181/2013. In view of the above
facts, the reversion of the applicant done in the impugned order is
36
OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067,
2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98,
99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022
liable to be quashed and set aside with heavy examplary cost in
the interest of justice.