Delhi High Court
V.K.Jindal vs Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. on 22 July, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 5129/1998
% 22nd July, 2013
V.K.JINDAL ......Petitioner
Through: Ms. S.Janani, Adv. and Mr. Sunando
Raha, Adv.
VERSUS
DELHI VIDYUT BOARD & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner who was appointed by the
respondent no.1/Delhi Vidyut Board as an Inspector on 5.9.1973, seeks
promotion to the post of Superintendant (Technical) w.e.f 29.8.1989.
2. A reference to the writ petition shows that the petitioner has not
stated as to what are the recruitment and promotion rules for being appointed
to the post of Superintendant (Technical). Petitioner has also not stated as to
how he had the qualification which met the requirements for the post. The
Recruitment and Promotion Regulations are stated to be marked as
Annexure-1, however the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations are not of
WP(C) 5129/1998 Page 1 of 4
the post of Superintendant (Technical) but are of the post of Inspector, and
which post, the petitioner already occupies.
3. The respondent no.1 (now represented by NDPL), in its
counter-affidavit therefore has taken up a clear stand that petitioner was
considered by DPC held in 1989 for the post of Superintendant (Technical)
but since the post in question was not a pure seniority post but a merit-cum-
seniority post, petitioner was not promoted because petitioner did not have
requisite good ACRs. Once the post is a merit-cum-seniority post, and not
an automatic promotion post based only on seniority, petitioner must satisfy
the Court as to how he was wrongly overlooked. Not only the petitioner has
in the writ petition not challenged his being found unfit by the DPC which
met on 29.6.1989, but also this writ petition itself was filed much much later
in the year 1998.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is as under:-
(i) The petitioner claims to be appointed to the post of Superintendant
(Technical) from the post of Inspector, however no recruitment and
promotion rules have been filed by him as to what are the requirements for
being appointed to the post of Superintendant (Technical), and the writ
petition also does not state as to how the petitioner met those requirements.
WP(C) 5129/1998 Page 2 of 4
(ii) The respondent, in its counter-affidavit in fact stated that the post in
question is not an automatic promotion post of seniority but it is a merit-
cum- seniority post. The respondent has further averred that the petitioner
was called by the DPC which met on 29.6.1989, however, the DPC, on the
basis of the ACRs of the petitioner did not find him fit for promotion and
accordingly petitioner was not recommended for promotion to the post of
Superintendant (Technical).
(iii) Petitioner has not challenged the decision of DPC which met on
29.6.1989 in this writ petition, and which writ petition itself has been filed
with considerable delay i.e in the year 1998 qua a DPC which met on
29.6.1989. The petition in case is barred by delay and laches if the decision
of DPC dated 29.6.1989 was to be challenged 9 years later in 1998.
5. In view of the above that petitioner was not considered fit by
the DPC which met on 29.6.1989 because of the ACRs of the petitioner, the
post being a merit-cum- seniority post, and petitioner not having challenged
the decision of the DPC which met on 29.6.1989 which overlooked the
petitioner on the ground that he did not have the requisite ACRs, hence,
petitioner will therefore have no legal right to be appointed as a
Superintendant (Technical) w.e.f 29.8.1989 or from 31.10.1990.
WP(C) 5129/1998 Page 3 of 4
6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition,
which is accordingly dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.
JULY 22, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
