Mrs. Rita Roy vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1852 Del

JUDGMENT

B.A. Khan, J.

1. Petitioner was appointed Stenographer Grade 'D' in 1989. She thereafter staked her claim for promotion to Grade 'C' (Grade II) and was selected by DPC and placed at Sr.No. 3 of select panel. It seems that candidates figuring at Sr.No. 1 & 2 failed to join within time and later the one at Sr.No. 2 filed OA 1169/99 for being given the benefit of promotion. His OA was, however, dismissed by order dated 4.11.1999. Subsequently petitioner represented on 19.11.1999 and asked for being promoted to the post. Her claim was not accepted also because of some ban on appointments which had come into force meanwhile. She then filed OA 231/2001 which was opposed by respondent on the plea that one year life of select panel having expired, she could not be promoted. Tribunal consequently dismissed her OA in liming, holding that life of the DPC panel was one year under some Rules and, therefore, petitioner was not liable to be promoted. Hence this petition.

2. Petitioner's short grievance is the Tribunal had misdirected itself because no rule in force posed any impediment to her promotion.

3. Respondents have filed counter taking the stand that life of the select panel drawn up[ by DPC for a selection post was only one year under DP & T OM No. 22011/5/86-Estt(D) dated 10th April, 1989. Para 17.13.1 and on this analogy respondent No. 2 had also taken a decision to prescribe one year for non-selection post.

4. Petitioners case is that DP&T instructions applied to a selection post only and not to post of Stenographer (Grade II) which was a non-selection post and the impugned Tribunal order had failed to notice this distinction.

5. We have examined the Tribunal order and find that Tribunal had mixed up the two and fallen in error in taking the view that life of selection panel was one year. As a matter of fact this validity period held good for selection post when the promotion post in the present case was admittedly a non-selection post. The validity period of one year, naturally could not have been applied to it. The Tribunal order therefore becomes unsustainable and is set aside.

6. But even this would not result in allowing petitioner's claim because R-2 had passed his own orders to adopt the validity period for non-selection post also and to convene the fresh DPC. Therefore, unless petitioner challenges this decision of R-2, she could not be granted any relief. This petition is accordingly disposed of by leaving her free to challenge R-2's decision before Tribunal on available grounds and no plea of limitation shall come in her way for this and meanwhile one post of Stenographer Grade 'C' shall remain available/reserved for her till Tribunal considers and decides her claim.