Union Of India And Others vs Smt. Achala Mediratta
2009 Latest Caselaw 2849 Del

*         HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI


+         Writ Petition (Civil) No.6224-26 of 2006


                              Judgment reserved on: July 8, 2009

%                             Judgment delivered on: July 27, 2009

1.   Union of India
     Through Secretary
     Ministry of Urban Development
     Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi

2.   The Chairman TCPO
     Ministry of Urban Development
     Government of India
     Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi

3.   Chief Planner, TCPO
     Ministry of Urban Development
     Government of India
     Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi                        ...Petitioners

                              Through    Ms. Jyoti Singh, Adv.

                    Versus

Smt. Achala Mediratta
W/o Shri Nipin Mediratta
Now r/o 127, Sector 21-B
Faridabad, Haryana
Working as Research Assistant in
Town & Country Planning Organization
Ministry of Urban Development
Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi                                            ...Respondent

                              Through    Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv.

WP (C) No.6224-26/2006                                       Page 1 of 6
 Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                               Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                            Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported
   in the Digest?                                                Yes

MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 25th January,

2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,

New Delhi in O.A. No. 996/2005.

2. The Respondent was promoted as a Research Assistant some

time in 1990 but did not get any further promotion for quite some time.

When the Respondent became a Research Assistant, the cadre strength

in the promotion post of Research Officer was 8 but subsequently 5

posts were abolished and only 3 posts of Research Officer remained.

3. In 2004 when the seniority list of Research Assistant was

drawn up, the Respondent's name was shown at serial No.2. A regular

Departmental Promotions Committee (DPC) was held on 16 th June,

2005 and recommended the case of the Respondent for promotion to the

post of Research Officer as a general category candidate. However, one

Shri R.S. Meena, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, represented to the

Petitioner that in terms of the 14 point roster, one of the posts was

required to be filled up by a Scheduled Tribe candidate.

4. On the representation of Shri R.S. Meena, a reference was

made to the Department of Personnel & Training and the opinion given

by them is of some importance. The Department of Personnel &

Training opined as follows:

"The sanctioned strength of the cadre was earlier 8, which has now been reduced to 3. In 14- point L shaped roster, 12 points have so far been consumed. The point of reference is when the cadre strength has been reduced to 3, should roster be started ab initio.

12 points of the L shaped roster have been consumed. Remaining two points of the roster should first be consumed. Thereafter fresh roster from point No. 1 may be started."

5. On receipt of the advice of the Department of Personnel &

Training, a review DPC was constituted by the Petitioner for making the

promotions. Since the Respondent was No.2 in the seniority list of

general category candidates, she apprehended that she may not be

promoted as a Research Officer since one of the vacancies was to go to a

Scheduled Tribe candidate. Therefore, she filed an original application

before the Tribunal praying for a direction for holding a review DPC to

consider her for promotion in accordance with the model roster for 3

posts and to grant to her all consequential benefits. By the impugned

judgment and order, the Tribunal allowed her application and that is

how the Petitioner is now before us.

6. In our opinion, the Tribunal overlooked the opinion given by

the Department of Personnel & Training. It is true that in terms of the

Office Memorandum dated 2nd July, 1997 which was issued consequent

to the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. v. State

of Punjab & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 745, it is provided in paragraph 4(b)

that the number of points in the roster shall be equal to the number of

posts in the cadre and in case there is any increase or decrease in the

cadre strength in future, the roster shall be expanded/contracted

correspondingly.

7. However, the manner of operating the roster is really a matter

for the Department of Personnel & Training to advise on. The decision

taken by this Department, in so far as the present case is concerned, was

that since 12 points have already been consumed in the 14 point L

shaped roster, it would be appropriate that the remaining 2 points of the

roster should first be consumed. Thereafter, a fresh roster from point

No.1 may be started keeping in mind the cadre strength of 3. It appears

to us that there is nothing irrational in this interpretation given by the

Department of Personnel & Training to the 14 point roster.

8. It does appear that this case is somewhat unusual in the sense

that the cadre strength was quite low (as it is) having a sanctioned

strength of 8 and it became lower still with the abolition of 5 posts. But

the Department of Personnel and Training felt that since the 14 point

roster had already been operated for the cadre strength of 8 and 12

points had already been consumed in the L shaped roster, it would be

appropriate to consume the remaining 2 points rather than to restart the

process from the very beginning, that is, from point No.1. This is a

possible view that could be taken to tide over the immediate problem.

9. Undoubtedly, the interpretation given by the Department of

Personnel & Training does not suit the Respondent. However, we are of

the opinion that as long as the interpretation given to the Office

Memorandum dated 2nd July, 1997 is workable, it would not be

appropriate either for the Tribunal or this Court to interfere. In the event

of any doubt in the operation of the Office Memorandum, it is best left

to the administrative authorities, particularly the Department of

Personnel & Training to sort out the issue rather than for the Tribunal or

this Court to substitute its own views for that of the said department, so

long as the interpretation is not perverse or irrational.

10. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the

impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. It is,

accordingly, set aside and the original application filed by the

Respondent before the Tribunal is dismissed.

                                               MADAN B. LOKUR, J




July 27, 2009                                  A.K. PATHAK, J
ncg

Certified that the corrected copy
of the judgment has been
transmitted in the main Server.