M. Venkataraman vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 222 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 16.04.2004 in OA No. 1506 of 2004 and also the order dated 03.08.2004 passed in RA No. 198/2004 in MA No. 1532 of 2004 in OA No. 1506 of 2003; as well as the impugned letter of the Board dated 14.11.2002 conveying the denial of promotion to the Petitioner to the post of Senior General Manager on the ground of insufficient number of vacancies.

2. The applicant filed the OA No. 1506 of 2003 against the order dated 14.11.2002 by which the promotion of the applicant to the post of Senior General Manager in Indian Ordnance Factory Service (IOFS) for the year 1995-96 was denied on the ground for want of sufficient number of vacancies. The applicant submitted that his order was stated to have been passed in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal in the earlier OA of the applicant where the Tribunal had directed the respondents to hold the review DPC to consider the case of the applicant for promotion from the date on which the Respondent No. 4, his junior, was considered for promotion and to promote the applicant with retrospective effect if found fit by the DPC and to grant him the notional promotion and fixation of pay and allowances etc.

3. The applicant was a member of Indian Ordnance Factories Service (IOFS) and superannuated on 31.10.1995. At the time of superannuation he was working as General Manager and was posted at Small Arms Factory, Kanpur. The post of General Manager belongs to Senior Administrative Grade which the applicant occupied from 31.3.1986 and though he had put in more than 91/2 years in service as SAG before retirement, at the time of consideration for the post of Senior General Manager, the applicant was ignored and his junior Shri G. Gopakumar was given the said promotion.

4. In the OA the applicant highlighted his various achievements and commendation certificates received by him during his service and also placed on record various charts showing how during his tenure factories had progressed and alleged that despite furnishing all of the above, his case was ignored as these awards were not taken note of by the DPC.

5. The applicant also alleged that his junior Shri G. Gopakumar who was given the promotion was not in the consideration zone when the DPC met for considering the case for promotion to the post of General Manager. The applicant pointed out that when the DPC was held there were only 8 vacancies for the post of Senior General Manager and the consideration could be confined to only 20 members of the service whereas Shri G. Gopakumar, Respondent No. 4 was given the promotion when he was still not fit to be considered for the same. The applicant thus submitted that he was entitled to be promoted from the date his immediate junior was promoted and this was so held in the earlier OA as well. This however was averred to be ignored in the subsequent review DPC.

6. The Tribunal dismissed the OA filed by the Petitioner and the relevant paragraph of the order dated 16.04.2004 of the Tribunal which contains the reasoning underlying the judgment is reproduced below:

12. The learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that it is not disputed that except Shri G. Gopakumar all other persons are senior to the applicant and if we remove Shri G. Gopakumar from the scene as if Shir G. Gopakumar was not in the consideration zone then also all those officers who had been given promotion would have gone a step higher and in that event also the last candidate who had been promoted is Shri R.N. Mehtani who is senior to the applicant. Shri Mehtani would have gone to the place of Shri N.K. Bandopadhyay who was given a vacancy dated 1.12.1995 and since Shri R.N. Mehtani was given a vacancy dated 6.1.1996. But it is an admitted case of the applicant that he had superannuated on 31.10.1995 so at best he could have been accommodated in the vacancy dated 6.1.1996 but as on that date he was not in service so he could not be given promotion earlier than that date. Had any of his juniors have been accommodated in any vacancy earlier to 31.10.1995 then the applicant did have some case. But here even the two seniors to the applicant had been given promotion after 31.10.1995 so if Shri G. Gopakumar is removed from the scene then also the applicant did not have any right to be considered as by that time he would have already retired. Thus, we are of the considered view that in the circumstances applicant cannot claim to have a right against any of the vacancy which had occurred after his superannuation so no writ should be issued for holding a review DPC since Shri G. Gopakumar was not in the consideration zone.

7. The facts enumerated in the above paragraph were not disputed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is thus not in dispute that Shri R.N. Mehtani, who is senior to the Petitioner could have been appointed in that vacancy occurring on 6.01.1996. If this be so, the consideration of the record becomes irrelevant.

8. Notwithstanding the findings of the review DPC we feel that the contention of the applicant has no merit since he could have been considered for the promotion only in the event of his still being in service on and after 6.01.1996. It is however an admitted position that the Petitioner had retired on 31.10.1995 and therefore we feel was rightly not considered for the said post. We also agree with the finding of learned Tribunal that the Court cannot sit in judgment and adjudicate upon the affairs of the DPC when not strictly required. Even if Petitioner's case was considered, he could have only been accommodated in the vacancy which would have arisen after 6.01.1996. Since the Petitioner had already retired on 31.10.1995, he would not have been accommodated in that vacancy.

Accordingly, the Tribunal's judgment can not be faulted and Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.