Ravindra Prasad Jugal vs Uoi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 754 Del

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

                      Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3687/1997

                              Date of decision: 9th February, 2010

       RAVINDRA PRASAD JUYAL                ..... Petitioner
                     Through Mr. R.P. Sharma, Adv.

                               versus

       UOI & ANR                 ..... Respondent

Through Ms. Barkha Babbar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No

GITA MITTAL, J(Oral)

1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 10th July, 1997 passed by the

respondent directing cancellation of the limited departmental examination

conducted for promotion from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector /Clerk to Sub-

Inspector/Clerk in July, 1995, based on the findings of a staff court of inquiry

conducted into certain allegations of malpractices in respect thereof.

2. Our attention is drawn to a challenge laid to the same examination by

another candidate in W.P.(C) No. 14625/1997 before the Punjab & Haryana

High Court which came to be decided by the

judgment and order passed on 5th May, 1998. This judgment of the Punjab &

Haryana High Court was assailed by the official respondents before the

Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Punjab &

Haryana High Court vide judgment reported as (2005) 8 SCC 180 UOI vs.

Joseph P. Cherian. It is undisputed that the issues raised before this court

stand covered by the binding pronouncement of the Apex Court aforesaid. The

Supreme Court has held that the 1995 examination having been cancelled on

account of adoption of unfair means on a large scale, there was no question of

any candidate being considered for promotion on the basis of marks secured by

him at such an examination. For this reason, the Supreme Court set aside the

direction of the High Court that the respondent employee would be considered

for promotion to the 86 vacancies which arose subsequent to the examination

conducted by the respondents and that the marks secured in the cancelled

examination would be taken into consideration.

3. In view of the above, the challenge to the cancellation of the said

examination by the petitioners in the present writ petition cannot stand.

4. At this stage, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner contends that the petitioner became entitled to a time scale

promotion after he had undertaken the examination in 1995. He contends that

the filing and pendency of the present writ petition ought not to have come in

the way of the petitioner being granted the time scale promotion on the date

when the petitioner became entitled to the same.

5. Mr. Barkha Babbar, learned counsel for the respondent has very fairly

placed a communication dated 30th October, 2009 before us. It has been

pointed out there in that so far as the time scale promotion to the post of

SI/Clerk is concerned, a candidate was required to have put in eight years

service on 1st January immediately proceeding the year in which the vacancy

has arisen as per the applicable DOP&T instructions.

6. The following reproduction from this communication would manifest that

the petitioner was not eligible for the time scale promotion to the post of

SI/Clerk for the vacancies which arose in 1997-1998 :-

"(iv) Since the petitioner was appointed as ASI/Clk wef 10/2/1989, he was not completed 08 years regular service in the grade as on 1st Jan 1997 i.e. cut of date of the vacancy year 1997-98.

(v) Since the petitioner was not completed 08 years regular service as on cut on date of 1st Jan 1997, he was not eligible for consideration for promotion to the rank of SI/Clk during the vacancy

year 1997-98.

(vi) As per central seniority list of ASI/Clk circulated on 24 Jan 1997, name of the petitioner stands placed at Srl No. 142. His immediate junior namely ASI/Clk Omprakash (Srl.No.143) and his immediate senior ASI/Clk Anil Kumar (S.No. 134) who have notqualified the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held on 06/07 April, 1998 were promoted to the rank of SI/Clk on normal course on seniority basis wef 09/6/2000 i.e. after 01 year and 08 months from the date of promotion of the petitioner to the rank of SI/Clk through LDCE. Photo copies of relevant pages of Central Seniority List circulated dtd 24 Jan 1997 and 15 Oct 2009 are attached as Annexure-R-1 & R-2.

(vii) In the light of the above, the contention of the petitioner as he was eligible for regular promotion by time scale to the rank of SI/Clerk should have been promoted to the rank of SI/Clerk during the year 1997, promotion on the basis of the departmental examination which was held in 1998 had put him in a disadvantage and made him junior to 152 personnel are incorrect and misleading.

(viii) Since the petitioner was not eligible for consideration for promotion to the rank of SI/Clk during the year 1997 on the basis of time scale, the question of adverse affect in his seniority in the rank of SI/Clk does not arise. The petitioner promoted to the rank of SI/Clk w.e.f. 16/10/1998 through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (fast track promotion) whereas his immediate junior/senior on regular course were promoted to the rank of SI/Clk wef 09/6/2000."

7. The petitioner thus stands promoted with effect from 16th October, 1998

after he successfully undertook the said examination. It is also evident from

the above that no person junior to the petitioner has been given a promotion

prior to his appointment to

the post of Sub-Inspector.

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

GITA MITTAL,J

VIPIN SANGHI, J FEBRUARY 09, 2010 kr