Janardan Kumar Gupta And 8 Others vs Union Of India Thru. Narcotics ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2932 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34406 of 2017
 
Petitioner :- Janardan Kumar Gupta And 8 Others
 
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Narcotics Commissioner & 12 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyamal Narain
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Agarawal
 

 
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.

Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

We have heard Sri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1, 2 and 3.

The petitioners, who claim themselves to be Sub-Inspector in the Central Bureau Of Narcotics, have approached this Court with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.09.2016, passed by the learned Single Member of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in Original Application No.330/1183/2016, (Sanjay Kumar Srivastava and others versus Union of India and others) by which it has been directed not to proceed with the Departmental Promotion, if it is going to be held on 16.09.2016.

The facts of this case, in brief, are that the respondent nos. 4 to 13, who happened to be UDC and Stenographer, have approached the Tribunal with the prayer to direct the respondents to place the name of the applicants before Departmental Promotion Committee (in short D.P.C.) for consideration of their promotion to the post of Inspector in DPC year 2016. Further prayer has been made to permit the applicants to appear in forthcoming meeting of the D.P.C. for the promotion to the post of Inspector in DPC year 2016. The interim relief was also shought to the extent to direct the respondents not to hold the forthcoming meeting of D.P.C. On this, on the first date of hearing, the interim order dated 15.09.2016 has been passed by learned Single Member of the Tribunal.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the promotion on the post of Inspector is made from three sources i.e.:- (i)  Direct Recruitment, (ii) from promotion amongst UDC and Stenographer, and (iii) from promotion amongst Sub-Inspector.

The ratio of promotion from amongst UDC and Stenographer and Sub-Inspector happens to be 7:5:9. The quota of respondents was over flowing as according to the petitioners as against 45 persons, 50 persons have already been promoted as Inspector whereas in the cases of petitioners as against 80, only 46 persons have been promoted on the post of Inspector.

It is stated that when the petitioners came to know about the aforesaid interim order, they have filed an impleadment application alongwith stay vacation application and counter affidavit before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the impleadment application on 03.10.2016 with the direction to the respondents to implead the petitioners. However, the respondents have not impleaded and ultimately the Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.2016 has fixed 25.10.2016 directing the respondents to implead the petitioners by the next date. It is thereafter the petitioners have been impleaded as respondents however, thereafter the case was listed on 25.10.2016 and on that date, 27.10.2016 was fixed. Again on 27.10.2016, next date was fixed for 03.11.2016 and interim order was directed to continue till the next date. On 03.11.2016, the argument on behalf of the respondents (petitioners herein) was concluded and another party sought only one day time to rebut the argument of the petitioners. On that, the Tribunal has fixed 08.11.2016 and marked the matter as part heard by granting time to file rejoinder affidavit. On 08.11.2016, the stay vacation application could not be disposed of and next date was fixed for 23.11.2016. On 23.11.2016, due to full court reference, the matter was postponed for 05.12.2016. On 05.12.2016 the case was listed before another Bench where it transpired the matter has been marked as part heard before the bench consisting of Ms. Jasmine Ahmed, J.M. and Hon'ble Mr. O. P. S. Malik, A.M. and no date was fixed and interim order was directed to continue till the next date of listing. Thereafter, the matter was again taken up on 25.01.2017 and it was ordered to be listed on 07.02.2017 as part heard for arguments on stay vacation application.

Prior to that, the petitioners have approached this Court through Writ-A No.59587 of 2016 (Janardan Kumar Gupta and 9 others vs. State of U.P. and others). This Court after hearing the counsel for the petitioners in detail have disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with the following observations.

"The records indicate that the Tribunal is hearing the stay vacating application and dates have been fixed. It is for the petitioners to apprise the Tribunal about any urgency in the matter and the Court has no reason to doubt that the Tribunal will consider the request. There is, therefore, no ground to interfere with the interim order at present as the Tribunal is hearing the stay vacating application.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations."

It has been brought to our notice that not only petitioners have filed their counter affidavit alongwith stay vacation application but counter affidavit alongwith stay vacation application has also been filed on behalf of Union of India and the Central Board of Excise and Customs New Delhi. The reasons for vacating the interim order have been stated in paragraph 5, 6 and 8 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos.5, 6 and 8 which read as under:-

"(5) That it is pertinent to mention that the promotion to the grade of inspectors is required to be made in accordance with narcotics department (Group C) Recruitment Rules 2002 effective from 19th January 2002 (Annexure No. A-2 of Original Application). The RRs at the material time provided that the post of inspectors shall be filled up in the ratio of 1:1:1 from the direct recruitment and by promotion from the grade of Sub-Inspectors and UDC/stenographer Grade-III. In other words the ratio of the direct recruited inspectors and those promoted from the grade of Sub-Inspectors and Steno (Gr-III)/UDC was 1:1:1 and Latter on the ratio was amended to 7:5:9 vide notification number G.S.R. 56(E), dated 2.2.2010 (Annexure No. A-3 of Original Application). The strength of Inspectors in the common cadre of Central Bureau of Narcotics (C.B.N.) and Chief Controller of Factories (C.C.F.) is 187 as conveyed by Central Bureau of Excise and Customs (C.B.E.C.) vide letter F. No. A11019/08/2010 AD-IV, dated 16.03.2011. According to this strength, keeping in view the ratio in the grade of Inspectors the number of posts for each cadre is computed as under:

(a) Direct Inspectors :62

(b) Those who were promoted from the Grade of UDC / Steno Gr-III :45

(c) Those who were promoted from the Grade of Sub-Inspectors :80

(6) That, against these posts the present strength of inspectors who were promoted from the grade of UDC / Steno Grade-III stands at 50 i.e. the representation of officers promoted from the grade of UDC / Steno Grade-III in the cadre of Inspectors is more that the strength fixed under the recruitment rule.

(8) That the present strength of Inspectors promoted from the grade of Sub-Inspectors is 46 which is 34 less that the sanctioned strength and therefore it was decided to conduct the DPC only from the grade of Sub-Inspector."

It is submitted that because of interim order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal not only petitioners are suffering, but the department is also deprived of in not proceeding with the next meeting of DPC for promoting the respondents under the recruitment Narcotics Department (Group "C" posts) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2004, due to which the work is suffering.

Sri Agarwal, who appears for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, submits that in view of the fact that the promotional quota UDC and Stenographer is already filled up and they have been promoted in excess to their strength and now no promotion from their cadre can be made.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, prima facie we find that because of the continuance of the Interim order dated 15.09.2016, the department is unable  to proceed with the DPC. However, in view of the fact the matter is tied up before particular Bench and one member of this set Bench namely Hon'ble Mr. O. P. S. Malik, Member (A) has retired on 14th July, 2017 and another member Hon'ble Ms. Jasmine Ahmed, is not available because of his surgery at new Delhi, as per submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, we provide that whichever Bench is available that may dispose of the stay vacation application at the earliest possible time.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 3.8.2017

Swati