Union Of India & Ors vs Sanjay Kumar & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 1872 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+           W.P.(C) No.17534-36/2005


%                                Date of Decision: 30.03.2011


UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                      ..... Petitioner
                           Through :   None.

                      versus

SANJAY KUMAR & OTHERS                                    .... Respondent
                  Through :            None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

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 Digest? No

ANIL KUMAR, J.

The petitioner Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of

Finance and Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others have

challenged the order dated 03.02.2005 passed by Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench, in O.A. No. 48/2004 titled as "Sanjay Kumar

& Others v. Union of India & Others" allowing the Original Application of

the respondents and directing the petitioners to convene the DPC to

consider the case of the respondents for promotion to the posts of DEO

grade B in accordance with rules and instructions and in the event the

respondents found fit, to give all the consequential benefits to them.

The respondents had sought promotion as Data Entry Operators

grade B against the vacancies which accrued in 2000 for which the DPC

was not held.

The respondents contended that they were appointed as Data

Entry Operators, grade A, on regular basis in the year 1995 on different

dates and as per Data Entry Operators Recruitment Rules, 1987, they

become eligible for promotion to Data Entry Operator Grade B on

completion of 5 years of Regular Service in the grade A. The

respondents' plea was that they had completed the five years of service in

2000, however, no DPC was held and they could not be promoted.

The Tribunal had held that the respondents had become eligible on

01.01.2001 and vacancies were available, therefore, they had a right to

be considered for promotion and the petitioners were liable to hold DPC.

Even if the new Rules had not been finalized, the petitioner should have

followed the old Rules. The Tribunal also relied upon the decision of the

Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of Sh. Shankarasan Dash

V. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, holding that the decision not to fill up

vacancies had to be a bonafide and for appropriate reasons. The

Tribunal did not find any bonafide or appropriate reasons recorded by

the petitioners for not filling up the vacancies in the year 2001 and thus

held that not filling up the vacancies was not legally sustainable.

No-one is present on behalf of the parties.

The petitioners were also directed to complete the record of the writ

petition by filing record of the Tribunal by order dated 17.01.2008. The

record of the Tribunal has also not been filed.

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed in default of

appearance of the petitioners and their counsel and for non-prosecution.

Interim order dated 09.09.2005 which was made absolute on

20.02.2009 is also vacated.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

MARCH 30, 2011 srb