Delhi High Court
Uoi vs Hari Prasad on 1 March, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM No. 729/2011 in W.P.(C) No. 585/2010
% Date of Decision: 01.03.2011
UOI ...... Petitioner
Through Mr.H.K.Gangwani, Advocate
Versus
Hari Prasad ...... Respondent
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be NO
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. This Court while directing the petitioner to fill the post of
Director, CIL lying vacant since 2007 had noticed and observed that
Union of India is not discharging its duty to fill up the post of Director,
CIL as the present petition was preceded by two earlier litigations vide
O.A No.2209/2007 and O.A No.322/2008. In these circumstances, the
petitioners were directed to immediately take steps to fill the post on
regular basis and to complete the process within four months from 7th
July, 2010.
2. The period of four months granted in these circumstances expired
on 6th November, 2010 and the post had not been filled.
3. No application for extension of time was filed for more than two
months after the expiry of time and the above noted application for
extension of time was filed on 17th January, 2011.
4. Though the Court had directed on 7th July, 2010 to immediately
take steps to appoint on regular basis Director, CIL, however, in the
application the only relevant averment is that the recruitment rules for
the post of Director (CIL) re-designated as APPA (CIL) were notified on
1st October, 2010. What steps were taken from 7th July, 2010 up till 1st
October, 2010 have not even been disclosed. Why the rules could not be
notified prior to 1st October, 2010 has not been disclosed.
5. The allegation has also been made in the application for extension
of time which was filed more than two months after expiry of time
granted by this Court that ACR grading of Sh.Hari Prasad were below
bench mark and he was asked to give representation for up-gradation of
his grading. However, when was this done has not been disclosed. Why
he could not be asked to make representation immediately after 7th
July, 2010 has not been revealed.
6. What is stated in the application is that the proposal for filling up
one post of APPA (CIL) has been finalized and the proposal will be sent
to UPSC. When the proposal was finalized and when the proposal will
be sent to UPSC, the petitioner is apparently vague. It has not been
disclosed as to after how much time the proposal which has been
finalized will be sent.
7. The applicant/petitioner is utterly vague in alleging that the
whole process will take some time and it will not be possible to fill up
the vacancies on regular basis before 7th November, 2010. This
allegation was made on 17th January, 2011 and it has not even been
alleged or disclosed as to how much more time it will take and reason
for more time. The allegations made by the applicant in the application
are utterly vague and are as under:-
"3. That the RRs for the post of Director (CIL), now re-
designated as APPA (CIL), were notified on 01.10.2010.
4. That as certain ACRs grading of Shri Hari Prasad, JD
(Chemistry) were below bench mark, he has been shown his
below bench mark ACRs and asked to exercise his option
for giving representation for upgradation of the grading as
per procedure laid down by Department of Personnel &
Training.
5. That the proposal for filling up one post of APPA (CIL)
has been finalized as per new Recruitment Rules and after
reviewing the ACRs of Shri Hari Prasad, the proposal will be
sent to UPSC.
6. That the whole process will take some time and it has
not been possible to fill vacancy on regular basis before
07.11.2010."
8. The notice was issued on the application on 20th January, 2011
and the learned counsel for the applicant is unable to disclose as to
what more steps have been taken and how much more time is likely to
be taken by the applicant.
9. The learned counsel rather contends that the application is filed
in contemplation of any contempt application being filed by the
respondent. This cannot be a ground for this Court to further extend
time in the peculiar facts and circumstances.
10. Despite the order of this Court categorically holding that it
appears that somebody in the Ministry is pulling the strings by
preventing the post being filled up on regular basis so that a chosen one
can be given the benefit of working as a Director and allowing a Joint
Director who has been given the additional charge to continue and,
therefore, to complete the process within four months, the order has not
been complied with without disclosing any justifiable reasons.
11. In the totality of facts and circumstances and for the foregoing
reasons, the application appears to be an abuse of process of law. The
applicant has been failed to make out sufficient cause in the facts and
circumstances to further extend the time. The application is therefore,
without any merit and the applicant is not entitled for extension of time.
The application is therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
MARCH 01, 2011 VEENA BIRBAL, J.
„k‟
