Delhi High Court
S.N. Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 February, 2017
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3116/2015
Date of Decision : 20th February, 2017
S.N. SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj , Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Mr.
Swega Agarwal, Advocates for UPSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
The petitioner-S. N. Singh is a retired Principal Director from
the Armed Forces Headquarter Civil Service (AFHQ Civil Service),
to which post he was promoted in the year 2010-2011.
2. The petitioner had filed OA No. 3712/2011 challenging validity
the letter dated 02.09.2011 rejecting his claim for promotion to the
post of Director in the year 2006-2007 instead of 2007-2008 and to
the post of Principal Director in the year 2009-2010, with other
consequential benefits.
3. The O.A. was dismissed vide the first impugned order dated
09.10.2012. The second impugned order dated 24.12.2014, dismissed
the review application.
4. The petitioner submits that there were 3 vacancies in the grade
of Director in 2006-07 as one vacancy each in the said post were
released by the Defence Research & Development Organisation
(DRDO)) and by the Director General Aeronautical Quality
Assurance (DGAQA). The third vacancy was due to the retirement of
the incumbent Director from AFHQ Civil Service.
5. It is an accepted and admitted position that the Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) for filling up of vacancies in the years
are to be held in advance. However, the DPCs for several years
including the years in question were held belatedly.
6. One vacancy in the post of Director in the DGAQA Cadre was
released initially for a period of three years, to be filled by an officer
from AFHQ Civil Service with effect from 28.12.2006. The file
noting dated 28.12.2006 also records that said vacancy was for the
time being and would be manned by the Joint Secretary (Training)
and Chief Administrative Officer. This noting is equally relevant and
important. The reason is obvious; the post of Director in the DGAQA
cadre was being release at the end of the year, on 28.12.2006.
Appointment of a new incumbent from AFHQ Civil Service at that
time and when the Department Promotion Committee had not been
convened would have lead to difficulty. In any case, the petitioner
cannot claim exclusive or statutory right to the said post for the post
did not belong to his service. The release from DGAQA cadre was
subject to the stipulation that for the time being the post would be
manned by the Joint Secretary (Training) and Chief Administrative
Officer.
7. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we do not think that
the petitioner can claim any legal right that he should have been
considered for promotion to the post of Director for the year 2006-
2007.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the
vacancy in post of Director released/given by DRDO, for a period of
one year, was included in the panel for the year 2006-2007. This is
factually correct but there are differences between the release by
DGAQA and DRDO. The DRDO vide their letter dated 04.10.2006
to the Ministry of Defence, Government of India had requested for
reverting their officer presently posted on deputation as Director. The
relevant portion of the letter dated 04.10.2006 reads as under:-
"I am approaching you in connection with posting
of Shri S N Singh present on deputation with DRDO in
the grade of Director. Shri Singh is reverting back on 30
Oct 2006 to the cadre. He is engaged in some of the
projects relating to personnel management in a mission
mode. His continuance, therefore, would be essential in
the interest of organization, as these activities have got a
bearing on future needs of the organization.
I would, therefore, request you to post Shri S N
Singh, on his reversion to DRDO itself atleast for a
period of one year. To facilitate his posting back we are
releasing a post in the grade of Director (Rs.14300-
18300) to your office. As his involvement in the ongoing
activities is such that he cannot be relieved even for a
single day, we would request you to consider him as
repatriated from the date he is promoted to be grade of
Director and posted back to DRDO. We are also willing
to release one more vacancy for a period till next vacancy
is available in AFHQ cadre to facilitate his promotion
and posting back immediately."
Thus, the DRDO had released their vacancy much earlier in
point of time. They had requested that the present Director from their
cadre be repatriated immediately.
10. The vacancy at the post of Director which became available on
being released by the DRDO vide letter dated 04.10.2006 cannot be
equated with the vacancy which was released by DGAQA on
28.12.2006 with the specific stipulation that for time being the post of
Director would be manned by the Joint Secretary (Training) and the
Chief Administrative Officer.
11. This being the position we do think, that the petitioner is
justified and can contend that two vacancies at the post of Director
which were released by DGAQA and DRDO should be equated and
treated alike.
12. The Departmental Promotion Committee meetings in the
AFHQ Civil Service for the year 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007
and 2007-2008 were held belatedly on account of seniority dispute
which had become subject matter of litigation.
13. In the selected list for 2006-2007, two officers from the cadre
of Joint Director in the AFHQ Civil Service, who were senior to the
petitioner were selected for the two posts of Directors in the AFHQ
Civil Service cadre and DRDO service cadres. The vacancy released
by DGAQA vide letter dated 28.12.2006 was not included in the
proposal and also in the selected panel for the reason that the said post
had been manned by the Joint Secretary (Training) and Chief
Administrative Officer with effect from 02.01.2007. The authorities
had decided that this post should not be filled in this year, but should
be filed by the panel for the next year. The petitioner (S. N. Singh)
was accordingly included in the panel list/select list for the year 2007-
2008 and promoted as the Director.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition has no merit and is
accordingly dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2017
b
