Delhi High Court
Dalbir Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 30 March, 2012
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.783 of 2001
Reserved on: March 01, 2012
% Pronounced on: March 30, 2012
DALBIR SINGH . . . PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. S.K. Das,
Advocate.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. . . .RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Aditya Madan, Advocate
for respondent No.1 to 3.
Mr. G.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Pramod Gupta,
Advocate for respondent Nos.
4 & 5.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
A.K. SIKRI, Acting Chief Justice
1. This case has checkered history inasmuch as there have been
various litigations between the parties. The petitioner herein
had filed OA No.1972/1996 wherein he had questioned the
seniority position assigned to him vis-à-vis other officials in the
grade of `1640-2900/-. In this petition, he had claimed
seniority over respondent No.5 but the respondent No.4 was
not the party to those proceedings implying that the
respondent No.5 has accepted the seniority above respondent
No.4. In this OA, orders dated 27.11.1996 was passed by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to
as „the Tribunal‟) promoting the official respondents to make
promotions subject to the outcome of the said OA. Thereafter,
the Department issued Office Order dated 06.5.1997 and
promoted respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the post of Seed Analyst
and Agronomist (IADP) respectively. Challenging this order,
the petitioner filed OA No.1276/1997 (present writ petition
arises out of these proceedings).
2. While OA No.1276/1997 was still pending, OA No.1272/1996
came up for hearing before the Tribunal and vide order dated
08.3.2000, the Tribunal allowed the OA in favour of the
petitioner directing the respondent Department to reassign the
seniority position in the seniority list of the officials in the grade
of `1640-2900/- after taking into consideration the ad Hon'ble
Court officiation period of the petitioner on the post of Sr.
Demonstrator. While complying with the directions of the
learned Tribunal and giving benefit to the petitioner the
Department also extended the similar benefit to the respondent
No.5 again showing him senior to the petitioner vide re-drawn
seniority list dated 25.8.2000, which was made the subject
matter of challenge in OA No.1864/2001. The Tribunal
dismissed OA No.1864/2001 on merits vide order dated
25.9.2002 and the same was assailed before this Court in
W.P.(C) No.3599/2003. This Court vide order dated
20.12.2007 set aside the order of the Tribunal and the
respondent Department complied with the same by issuing the
seniority list dated 08.6.2009 by which the petitioner became
senior to the respondent No.5 having been assigned seniority
position at Sl. No.2 over and above the respondent No.5 who
has been assigned seniority position at Sl. No.3. The new
seniority list has not been challenged by either of the parties
and has thus attained finality.
3. The effect of these proceedings is that the petitioner ranks
senior to the respondent No.5.
4. Insofar as OA No.1276/1997 is concerned, it came up for
hearing before the Tribunal and has been decided on merits
vide order dated 04.1.2001. The Tribunal has dismissed the
said OA whereby the petitioner has questioned the promotion
of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and claimed that he be promoted.
The main reason given by the Tribunal is that the petitioner
who was working as Demonstrator was not even eligible for
appointment as Seed Analyst and/or Agronomist. It is held
that neither in the Recruitment Rules, 1984 nor in the
Amended Recruitment Rules, 1997, the post of Senior
Demonstrator (which was held by the petitioner) was in the
feeder cadre for promotion and therefore, the petitioner did not
acquire any legally enforceable challenge to the right of the
respondent Nos.4 & 5 to the said post. We may point out here
that conscious of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner has also
questioned the validity of the aforesaid Rules submitting that
there was inconsistency between the provisions of the
Amended Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution
and Rule 20 of the Seed Rules framed under the Seed Act,
1966. The Tribunal repelled this contention also finding no
such inconsistency.
5. In this writ petition, impugning the order of the Tribunal, the
petitioner has not only sought quashing of the promotion of
respondent Nos.4 and 5 with prayer to direct review of said
promotion by considering the case of the petitioner, but he has
questioned the validity of Recruitment Rules/notification dated
18.2.1997 as well in the following manner:
"(d) May further be pleased to strike down the gazette
notification dated 18.2.1997 so far it relates to the laying
down of the qualification required for the post of Seed
Analyst after declaring the same to be ultra vires the
provisions of Rule 20 of the Seed Rule, 1968 with the
further direction to reframe the said rule in the light of
the provisions of Rule 20 of the Seed Rules, 1968."
6. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner drew our attention to the Notification dated
11.2.1997 vide which amendments to the Rules dated
13.7.1984 regarding method of recruitment and qualifications
for appointment to certain posts including Seed Analyst and
Agronomist were made. He specifically referred to Column
Nos. 11 and 12 of Recruitment Rules of this Amended
Recruitment Rules providing for method of recruitment, which
read as under:
"Col.11 (Method of recruitment 40% promotion.
whether by promotion or by 60% Direct
deputation/transfer and recruitment
percentage of the vacancy to
be filled by various methods)
Col.12 (In case of recruitment by Horticulturist, Farm
promotion/deputation/transfer, Manager, Training
grades from which Officer (Male),
promotion/deputation/transfer to be Fertilizer Inspector
made) and Vijnan Mandir
Officer in the scale
of pay of Rs.1640-
2900 with 3 years‟
regular service in
the grade and
possessing degree
in Agriculture or
allied subjects from
a recognised
University or
equivalent.
Note 1: The
eligibility list for
promotion shall be
prepared with
reference to the
date of completion
of the qualifying
service in the
respective
grade/post.
Note 2: Where
juniors who have
completed their
qualifying/eligibility
service are being
considered for
promotion, their
seniors would also
be considered
provided they are
not short of the
requisite
qualifying/eligibility
service by more
than one year and
have successfully
completed their
probation period, if
prescribed."
7. His argument, predicated on the aforesaid provision, was that
40% posts were to be filled up by promotion and in case of
promotion, the feeder cadre also included the "grade from
which promotion/deputation/transfer to be made" and against
this column, pay scale of `1640-2900/- was stipulated. He
submitted that this Rule clearly provided that a person who
was in the grade of `1640-2900/- was entitled to be considered
for promotion to the post of Agronomist as well as Seed
Analyst and since the petitioner was in the said pay scale and
was senior to the respondent No.5, he could not have been
ignored from consideration. He further submitted that all posts
were interchangeable including the Demonstrator held by him
and for this reason, which was even admitted by the
respondent in its reply, the Department had made combined
seniority list for the purpose of promotion. It was also
submitted that if the petitioner is not treated in the feeder
cadre, then there are no promotional avenue from the post of
Sr. Demonstrator. Even the validity of the Recruitment rules
was not question except in the manner stated above.
8. We may record that there may be other contentions in the writ
petition, but at the time of arguments, the learned Senior
Counsel raised and pressed the aforesaid contention only. We
are unable to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned
counsel, viz., since post of Sr. Demonstrator carries the pay
scale of `1640-2900/-, it should be treated as feeder cadre for
the post of Seed Analyst/Agronomist. Reading of the Rule
extracted above would clearly show that feeder cadre posts are
also specifically mentioned in the corresponding column of the
Recruitment Rules. Thus, there is a prerequisite that the
candidate should hold one of such posts which must be in the
grade of `1640-2900/-. Thus, both the requirements are to be
satisfied. Merely because the petitioner was in the grade of
`1640-2900/- would not make him eligible for promotion
unless he was holding one of the posts which are specifically
stipulated in the Recruitment Rules. This becomes clear when
we make combined reading of the seniority list and the
Recruitment Rules for the post of Horticulturists which was
produced at the time of arguments. Two persons whose names
are at Sl. No. 4 and 5 in the combined seniority list at the post
of Sales Manager (Input Centre, i.e., IC) and F.M.S. (Farm
Management
Specialist) though they are in the pay scale of `1640-2900,
they are also not treated as eligible for the promotion, though
they were in the same grade of pay. If the contention of the
petitioner is accepted, then many other incumbents enjoying
the same grade of `1640-2900 would also become eligible for
promotion to the post of Agronomist/Seed Analyst even though
they are not in the same line.
9. We, therefore, cannot hold that the post of Sr. Demonstrator is
in the feeder line to the post of Agronomist/Seed Analyst.
Since the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for
promotion, the Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner had no
locus to question the promotion of respondent Nos.4 & 5.
10. Insofar as non-availability of the promotional avenue is
concerned, the petitioner had not made any specific prayer in
this behalf. No doubt, promotional avenue should be provided
as impressed upon by the Supreme Court in the case of
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Anr.
Vs. K.G.S. Bhatt and Anr. (1989) 4 SCC 635. It may also be
noted that in order to take care of such a situation, the scheme
of Assured Career Progression is also introduced and the
petitioner must be getting benefit thereof. In any case, we are
not recording any final opinion on this aspect as that is not the
subject matter. Since we hold that the petitioner was not
eligible for promotion to the post with the respondent Nos.4
and 5, we find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by
the learned Tribunal and thus dismiss this petition.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW)
JUDGE
MARCH 30, 2011
pmc
