Delhi High Court
Dr Meena Gupta vs Uoi And Anr on 25 January, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25.01.2012
+ W.P.(C) 506/2012
DR MEENA GUPTA ... Petitioner
versus
UOI AND ANR ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr S. D. Singh with Mr Rahul Kumar Singh
For the Respondent : Mr Sumeet Pushkarna with Mr Gaurav Varma
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.07.2011 in
RA 184/2011 in OA 1618/2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition,
being WP(C) 6275/2008, being aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2006 in the
very same OA (i.e., 1618/2005). We may point out that this writ petition was
filed two years after the order dated 04.09.2006. When the earlier writ petition
was listed before this Court on 27.08.2008, this Court had observed as under:-
"We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal is dated 4th
September, 2006. The Petitioner has approached this Court after a
gap of almost two years. There is no explanation at all for the delay.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks some time to file an
additional affidavit indicating the reasons for delay in filing the writ
petition. He may do so within four weeks"
2. Thereafter, the earlier writ petition was again heard on 04.12.2008 by this
Court, when the following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel for the Petitioner says that he will file an affidavit
of the Petitioner indicating that adequate number of posts were
available for promoting the Petitioner in the year 2000.
Needful be done within six weeks.
To come up on 4th March, 2009"
3. Finally, the earlier writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court
on 11.03.2011. The order passed on that occasion was as under:-
"After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to
withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Tribunal on
the ground that on behalf of petitioner pursuant to order dated
04.12.2008 of the High Court, an affidavit was filed indicating that
adequate number of posts were available for promoting the petitioner
in the year 2000. He contends that these facts had not been
considered by the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
Dasti."
4. It is thereafter that the petitioner filed the review application, being
RA 184/2011, which has been dismissed by virtue of the order dated 28.07.2011,
which is now impugned before us in the present writ petition. A reading of the
orders passed by the High Court in the earlier round, indicate that the only
ground on which the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for
review was that the petitioner had filed an affidavit in the earlier writ petition
indicating that adequate number of posts were available to promote the petitioner
in the year 2000, but that this fact had not been considered by the Tribunal, while
passing the order dated 04.09.2006. It is, therefore, clear that the limited scope of
review was concerning the availability of adequate number of vacancies in the
year 2000.
5. The Tribunal, while considering the review application of the petitioner,
had examined the matter in detail on this aspect. The Tribunal observed as
under:-
"9. After perusing the minutes of the DPC meeting held on
1.8.2002 for the vacancies for the years 2000-01 and 2001-02, this
Tribunal In paragraph 10 has given a categorical finding that the
name of the applicant figures at Serial No.13 of the eligibility list,
whereas number of vacancies were seven and she being junior could
not obviously be included in the select list. At this stage, it will be
useful to quote paragraph 10 of the order of this Tribunal, which thus
reads:-
"During the course of hearing, it was felt necessary to peruse
the proceedings of the DPC held during the relevant years and
the respondents were directed to produce the minutes.
Respondents have placed the minutes of the DPC meeting
held on 1.8.2002, for vacancies for the years 2000-2001 and
2001-2002. A perusal of the minutes for the year 2001-2002
DPC shows that the applicant Dr. Meenu Gupta figures at
Serial No.13 of the eligibility list placed before DPC, but as
the number of vacancies to be filled were seven, she, being
junior, could not obviously be included in the select list. We
have perused the minutes of the DPC meeting held on
9.1.2004 for vacancies for the years 2002-2003 and 2003-
2004. The applicant finds place at Serial No.2 for the
vacancies for 2002-2003."
10. Thus, in view of this categorical finding given by this
Tribunal that only seven vacancies were available and the name of
the applicant figures at Sl.No.13 and she being junior could not
obviously be included in the select list, the vague averment made by
the applicant that vacancies were available in 2000 cannot be
entertained and deserves outright rejection. According to us, it is not
a case of such nature whether there is any error apparent on the face
of record."
6. From a consideration of this aspect of the matter, as noted in the
Tribunal's order, it is clear that the question of availability of vacancies was
considered even in the first round, that is, in the order dated 04.09.2006 in
paragraph 10 thereof, which has been quoted in the Tribunal's order dated
28.07.2011. It is also clear that in the first round, the Tribunal had examined the
proceedings of the DPC during the relevant years. Upon considering the same,
the Tribunal had noted that the petitioner figured at serial No.13 in the eligibility
list placed before the DPC, whereas the number of vacancies were seven and she,
being junior, could not, obviously, be included in the select list. Therefore, it is
clear that the Tribunal, even in the first round, had considered this aspect of
availability of vacancies in the year 2000, but had rejected the petitioner's claim
on the ground that she figured at serial No. 13 and there were others who were
senior to her.
7. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal, as
the Tribunal has committed no illegality. We may also point out that the learned
counsel for the petitioner had sought to argue on various other grounds before the
Tribunal in the course of the review application. However, the Tribunal has
rightly focused its attention only on the point of availability of vacancies in terms
of the order of this Court, whereby the petitioner's earlier writ petition was
dismissed as withdrawn.
The writ petition is dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
JANUARY 25, 2012
SR
