Parvinder S. Behuria vs Union Of India And Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1040 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of Decision: March 01, 2013

+                   W.P.(C) 1394/2013

      PARVINDER S.BEHURIA
                                                                ..... Petitioner
                             Represented by: Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate
                             with Mr.Abhimanyu Jhamb, Mr.Pradeep Gupta
                             and Mr.Rahul Sateeja, Advocates.
                    versus

      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
                                                              ..... Respondents
                             Represented by: : Mr.B.V.Niren, CGSC for UOI/
                             R-1 & R-2
                             Mr.Sanjeev Kr. Chaswal, Advocate for R-3.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

Caveat No.186/2013

Counsel, as above, appears for caveator/respondent No.3 and hence the caveat is discharged.

C.M.No.2623/2013

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

C.M.No.2624/2013

Allowed.

W.P.(C) 1394/2013

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1. Respondent No.3 would be attaining the age of superannuation on September 30, 2014. He has an issue pertaining to the ACR grading for the year 2006-07 with respect to which he has filed O.A.No.105/2013. The adverse affect of the ACR grading would impinge upon the select panel prepared for the year April 1, 2012 ending March 31, 2013.

2. The writ petitioner would be superannuating on March 31, 2014. The writ petitioner stands empanelled in the select panel for the year April 01, 2012 till March 31, 2013 and, as we understand, she is awaiting the next vacancy available during the currency of the panel year for her to be promoted as Member, CBDT.

3. The rules applicable require that notwithstanding a candidate being empanelled, benefit of promotion would not be available, if one year residual service is not left when vacancy accrues.

4. Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that one more vacancy would be arising on May 31, 2013 due to superannuation of one Mr.S.S.Rana, Member-CBDT.

5. It is in the aforesaid backdrop of the facts that we have to consider the impugned order dated February 12, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in M.A.No.381/2013 filed by respondent No.3 in O.A.No.105/2013.

6. The Central Administrative Tribunal has directed that till the next date of hearing of the Original Application, i.e., March 05, 2013, one post of Member-CBDT would not be filled up.

7. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner has not been impleaded as a respondent in the said Original Application filed by respondent No.3.

8. Now, if the operation of the impugned order would be permitted to ensue till March 31, 2013, the writ petitioner would lose by default, for the reason on April 01, 2013 she would be having less than one year residual service and even if the Original Application filed by respondent No.3 would be dismissed she would lose in any case. If the Original Application filed by respondent No.3 would be allowed and as a result correction would be directed to be made in the ACR grading of respondent No.3 for the year 2006-07, a review Board would have to be constituted to re-consider the candidates in the zone of consideration for the select panel pertaining to the year April 01, 2012 ending March 31, 2013. Thereafter, depending upon the merit position of respondent No.3 further action would be required to be taken.

9. The process is likely to consume time beyond March 31, 2013. Proceeding on the assumption that respondent No.3 would succeed and at the review selection process he finds a position above the writ petitioner, the department would have two options to follow. The first would be to adjust respondent No.3 with respect to the vacancy which would be arising on May 31, 2013, but giving him benefit of retrospective promotion. If this course of action is chartered by the department, success of respondent No.3 would not affect right of the writ petitioner. Assuming that the department chooses to charter a course by re-working the select panel pertaining to the year April 01, 2012 ending March 31, 2013, it may have an impact upon further continuation in service by the writ petitioner.

10. We simply highlight that the nebulous situation today would not warrant a blanket stay granted by the Tribunal as per its order dated February 12, 2013.

11. To strike equal equity between the parties, we dispose of the writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated February 12, 2013, but simultaneously observe that the petitioner's promotion, if any, as Member- CBDT would be subject to final decisions which would be taken post disposal of O.A.No.105/2013 filed by respondent No.3.

12. No costs.

13. Dasti.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE MARCH 01, 2013 'dc'