Delhi High Court
Gopal Singh vs I.G.I.P.Ed. & Sport Sciences & ... on 6 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~59-60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 6th March, 2014
+ WP(C) No.1898/1995
BHARAT BHUSHAN KHATRI ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Shanker Raju and
Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates.
Versus
I.G.I.P.ED. & SPORT SCIENCES & ORS. ...... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. G. Tushar Rao and
Mr. D.S.V. Krishnajee, Advocates for
respondents 1,2 and 3.
AND
+ WP(C) No.4392/1995
GOPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Shanker Raju and
Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates.
Versus
I.G.I.P.ED. & SPORT SCIENCES & ORS. ...... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. G. Tushar Rao and
Mr. D.S.V. Krishnajee, Advocates for
respondents 1,2 and 3.
WP(C) Nos. 1898/1995 & 4392/1995 Page 1 of 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. In WP(C) No.1898/1995, show cause notice dated 04.05.1995 is
under challenge which reads as under:-
" The Review Committee in its report of Meeting
held on 6.3.1995 observed the following
discrepancies/irregularities in your appointment as
Assistant and subsequent temporary promotion to the
present position of Senior Assistant:-
1) That you had appeared before the Selection
Committee on 7.3.1989 and were not selected for the post
of Assistant. Even after your rejection and that the
recommendations of the then Section Officer (Admn.),
resulted in your appointment as Assistant in April, 1989
without giving any opportunity to the other eligible
candidates.
2) That your promotion was made without
considering your Annual Confidential Reports of the last
three years and that you were appointed as Assistant in
April,, 1989 and had completed only one year and eight
months service in the position of Assistant.
3) That the Constitution of Departmental Promotion
Committee, which considered your promotion was invalid
as one of its members was closely related to one of the
candidates (viz. Mr. B.B. Khatri).
Keeping in view the aforesaid irregularities in your
original appointments as Assistants and consequent
promotions to the posts of Sr. Assistants show cause within
15 days from the date of issue of this letter as to why
should your promotion not be treated as irregular and why
should you not be reverted back to the post of Assistant?
Further show cause why your appointment as Assistant be
not reviewed by a fresh Selection Committee to be
constituted as per Delhi University Rules for
regularisation of your appointment as Assistant.
In case, no reply is received within the stipulated time, it
will be presumed that you have nothing to say in your
defence."
2. Whereas in WP(C) No.4392/1995, challenge is to the Memorandum
dated 15.11.1995, which reads as under:-
" Your reply dated 16.5.1995 in response to
memorandum Ref. No. IPE/95/PF/391 dated 10.2.1995
and show cause notice Ref. No.IPE/95/PF/56 dated
4.5.1995 is found very unsatisfactory. Hence as per the
recommendations of the Review Committee and as
decided by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 20 th
April, 1995, your promotion to Sr. Assistant stands
cancelled and you are reverted to the post of Assistant
with immediate effect. Your salary will be refixed and the
amount paid on the aforesaid irregular promotion will be
recovered in such instalments as will be decided lateron.
As regards your original appointment to the post of
Assistant, which was also found to be irregular by the
Audit party, is being reviewed by the fresh Selection
Committee to be constituted as per Delhi University
Rules."
3. It is pertinent to mention here that aforementioned show cause notice
was stayed by this Court vide order dated 18.05.1999.
4. In the above noted Memorandum dated 15.11.1995 promotion of the
petitioner Gopal Singh to the post of Sr. Assistant was cancelled and he was
reverted to the post of Assistant with immediate effect. Admittedly, both the
petitioners were appointed as Assistants in the year 1989 and both of them
were promoted to the post of Sr. Assistant in the year 1991. Vide the show
cause notice dated 04.05.1995, petitioner Bharat Bhushan Khatri was
asked to show cause as to why should his promotion not be treated as
irregular and why should he not be reverted back to the post of Assistant.
He was further asked to show cause as to why his appointment as Assistant
be not reviewed by a fresh Selection Committee to be constituted as per
Delhi University rules for regularisation of his appointment as Assistant.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners on
instructions submits that if both the petitioners are considered as Assistants
in the year 1989, they have no objection, subject to the condition that the
respondents shall consider them for promotion to the post of Sr. Assistant
and so on if they are found eligible for these posts.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1,2 and 3,
on instructions from Shri R.C. Rana, Administrative Officer, has accepted
this offer tendered by the petitioners.
7. In view of the above, I direct the respondents to constitute a DPC
within four weeks from today which shall consider both the petitioners for
promotion to the post of Sr. Assistant subject to their eligibility.
8. I further direct that if both or any one of them is promoted to the post
of Sr. Assistant, then they/he shall be considered for further promotion to the
post of Section Officer as per eligibility criteria.
9. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are disposed of.
10. No order as to costs.
11. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 06, 2014
RS/sb
