Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs Gunwant Singh & Ors on 7 May, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 07.05.2012
+ W.P.(C) 2670/2012
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GUNWANT SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr R.V. Sinha and Mr R.N. Singh and Ms Sangita Rai
For the Respondent : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.01.2004 in OA No.
1459/2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. The plea before
the Tribunal which had been raised by the respondent was with regard to his non
consideration for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer which was a Group „A‟ post
having a pre-revised scale of Rs 8000-11,500/-. The question was with regard to
qualifications which the respondent possessed as a Foreman to be considered for
promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.
2. Before the Tribunal the parties have concentrated their arguments with regard to
the interpretation to place Note 3 of the relevant Recruitment Rules. The Recruitment
Rules essentially provided that when juniors were considered to be eligible and qualified
W.P(C) 2670/2012
for consideration for promotion, person senior to such junior would have relaxed
eligibility conditions. The said Note 3 reads as under:-
(b) (i) Chief Draughtsman in the pay scale Group „A‟ Departmental Promotion
of Rs 6500-10500 with five years regular Committee (for confirmation) consisting
service in the grade possessing degree in of:-
Engineering from a recognized university
or equivalent. 1. Joint Secretary (Ordnance) Ministry
of Defence--Chairman
(ii) Chief Draughtsman in the pay scale of
Rs 650-10500 with seven years regular 2. Director Electronics and Mechanical
service in the grade possessing diploma in Engineer (Personnel) Army
Engineering from a recognized university Headquarters--Member
or equivalent.
Note-1: Promotion from (a) and (b) will be
in the ratio of 4:1
Note-2: The feeder grade officers holding
the posts of Assistant Engineer (including
posts in Assistant Engineer (Selection
Grade), Foreman and Chief Draughtsman
on the date of notification of these revised
rules are exempted from possessing the
educational qualifications indicated above.
Note-3: Where Juniors who have
completed their qualifying/eligibility
service are being considered for promotion,
their seniors shall also be considered
provided they are not short of the requisite
qualifying/eligibility service by more than
half of such qualifying/eligibility service or
two years, whichever is less and have
successfully completed their probation Sd/-
period of promotion to the next higher (Anita Kumar)
grade along with their juniors who have (Director (CP)
already completed such
qualifying/eligibility service.
3. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while he is not disputing
W.P(C) 2670/2012
the interpretation placed by the Tribunal in so far as the said Note 3 is concerned, he is
contesting the fact that the seniority itself is in doubt.
4. Unfortunately from the Original Application and the counter-affidavit filed before
the Tribunal, this submission does not find any support. The respondent had taken the
specific pleas with regard to the seniority position in paragraphs 4.9 and 4.10 of said
Original Application. The same reads as under:-
"4.9 That, however, the respondents totally ignored the submission
made in the representations of the Applicant and declared the select
panel for promotion as A.E.E. in respect of the following six
Foreman (All Graduate Engineers) w.e.f. vide Memo dtd. 24.08.2010
(Annexure A/4). 23.08.2010 in complete disregard of the provisions
of Note 3 of the statutory recruitments rules
Name Posts Vide S. No. of Seniority List Position in
Seniority
List
(a) Sh. R. Jaya Kumar 512 Army Base Wksp. 35
(b) Sh. S. Chandrakant 512 Army Base Wksp. 36
Swamy
(c) Sh.Narendera Singh 506 Base Wksp. 50
Army
(d) Sh.Satyakam 512 Army Base Wksp. 59
Srivastava
(e) Sh. Manoj Kumar 506 Army Base Wksp. 61
Dubey
(f) Sh. Puranik Jitendra 512 Army Base Wksp. 62
Parashuram
4.10. That based on the above said panel regular promotions have
already been given to the above-said individuals between the period
Oct., 2010. It is stated that all the six persons are junior to the
Applicant, whose name appears at S. No. 21 in the seniority list
against the position of the six persons in the Seniority List as
indicated against their names."
5. This position has not been specifically denied by the petitioners in their counter-
W.P(C) 2670/2012
affidavit before the Tribunal:-
"Paras-4.7 to 4.12: That the contents of the corresponding paras,
except those being matter of record, are wrong, misleading and
misconceived and hence vehemently denied. In view of the
submissions made hereinabove, the contents of the corresponding
paras of the OA need no further reply."
Thus, the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no factual
foundation. The seniority position which had been specifically set out by the respondent
in his Original Application has not been controverted by the petitioner before us in their
counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal.
6. In fact, even in the writ petition, the position as indicated by the respondent in his
Original Application has not been disputed. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ
petition and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K.JAIN, J
MAY 07, 2012
BG
W.P(C) 2670/2012
