$~30.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7380/2016
% Judgment dated 22 nd August 2016
MOHAR SINGH MEENA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with
Ms.Harvinder Oberoi and Ms.Manisha
Mehta, Advs.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Anil Grover, Standing Counsel and Ms.Kanika Singh, ASC for respondent no.1/NDMC.
Mr.M.K. Bhardwaj and Ms.Shriambhra Kashyap, Advs. for respondent no.2.
Mr.Pramod Kumar Gupta, Adv. for the respondent no.51.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA G.S.SISTANI , J (ORAL) CAVEAT PETITION NO.730/2016
1. Mr.M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of the caveator/respondent no.2. Accordingly, caveat petition stands disposed of.
CM APPL.NOS.30279-80/2016
2. Exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions.
3. Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7380/2016
4. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 9.8.2016 passed by W.P.(C).7380/2016 Page 1 of 4 Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Tribunal') in O.A. 3453/2015 filed by respondents no.2 and 3, inter alia, praying that the NDMC should hold a review DPC for the promotion to the post of AE (Civil).
5. Mr.J.P. Sengh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the NDMC had opposed the OA till an affidavit was filed by the NDMC on 17.12.2015 wherein a diametrical opposite stand was taken that a review DPC would be held. Senior counsel further submits that the petitioner would challenge the act of the NDMC of holding a DPC but the petitioner is aggrieved by the specific direction issued by the Tribunal in the concluding portion of the impugned order dated 9.8.2016 whereby NDMC was directed to hold a review DPC within two weeks.
6. Mr.M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 (petitioner before the Tribunal); and Mr.Pramod Kumar Gupta, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of respondent no.51 (also respondent no.51 before the Tribunal).
7. Learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 51 submit that in fact the Tribunal has not issued any specific direction but has only noted the contents of the affidavit dated 17.12.2015, which was filed by respondent no.1/NDMC and in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the stand taken by the respondent no.1 in the affidavit, he has an individual right. Counsel further submits that the affidavit filed by the NDMC discloses the reasons for holding a new DPC.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order dated 9.8.2016 as also the affidavit dated 17.12.2015 filed by the NDMC. The Tribunal had passed the following order on 9.8.2016:
W.P.(C).7380/2016 Page 2 of 4"It appears from the affidavit filed by respondent No.1 - NDMC dated 17.12.2015 that certain ambiguities were noticed in the DPC held on 03.09.2013 for promotion to the post of AE (Civil) and there is a decision to hold a review DPC after new roster register from 2002 onwards and the actual position of seniority list of AE (Civil) will be drawn on the basis of review DPC.
2. At this stage, learned counsel for the private respondents, Mrs.Harvinder Oberoi, states that this affidavit has been filed by the Director (Personnel) of NDMC without the approval of the competent authority of NDMC.
3. However, we find that this affidavit has been signed by one, Shri Rajneesh Vats, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.1. Therefore, this objection of learned counsel for the private respondents is rejected.
4. The respondents - NDMC are directed to hold a review DPC within a period of two weeks."
9. A reading of the impugned order would show that the Tribunal has only taken into account the affidavit dated 17.12.2015 filed by the NDMC, as per which, on account of certain ambiguities in the DPC held on 3.9.2013 for promotion to the post of AE (Civil), a decision has been taken to hold a review DPC after new Roster Register from 2002 onwards and not that a direction has been issued to NDMC based on bearing of the parties.
10. Mr.Grover, learned counsel for respondent no.1, submits that a review DPC is likely to be held within four weeks from today.
11. Since the NDMC for the reasons stated in the affidavit dated 17.12.2015 have decided to hold a review DPC, it would be open for the petitioner to challenge the act of the NDMC unaffected by any W.P.(C).7380/2016 Page 3 of 4 observation made by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 9.8.2016. Para 4 of the order dated 09.08.2016 is set aside.
12. In view of above, present writ petition stands disposed of. CM APPL. 30278/2016 (STAY)
13. Application stands disposed of in view of the order passed in the writ petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J I.S. MEHTA, J AUGUST 22, 2016 msr W.P.(C).7380/2016 Page 4 of 4