Delhi High Court
Dr. Anita Jain vs Union Of India & Anr on 27 October, 2017
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5597/2017
DR. ANITA JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Madhur Jain, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Panwar, CGSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 27.10.2017
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by judgment dated 31.05.2017 passed by
the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissing her original
application for issuing directions to the respondent No.1/Union of India to
consider appointing her to the post of Director, CGHS with all consequential
benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner as set up before the Tribunal was that she is
posted as an Additional Medical Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital, New
Delhi and entitled for being appointed to the post of Director, CGHS, on
adoption of the criteria of "seniority cum suitability" but the competent
authority has failed to apply the said criteria and instead, appointed
respondent No.2 to the subject post.
3. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is
senior to the respondent No.2 and though she meets the criteria of „seniority
cum suitability‟, respondent No.2 has been appointed by superseding her,
without any justification. He submits that being the senior most person in
the cadre, the petitioner ought to have been appointed unless and until, she
was found unfit for appointment but the respondents have not followed the
said criteria at all.
4. We may note that the case of the petitioner has been turned down by
the Tribunal solely on the ground that this was not a case of promotion but
of "lateral shifting" and it has been held that in such circumstances, the
petitioner cannot claim application of the rule of „seniority cum suitability‟.
5. The aforesaid observation of the Tribunal runs contrary to the
response given by the Government of India to the petitioner‟s
representation dated 02.03.2015 wherein, in the letter dated 10.4.2015, it has
been stated that appointment to the post of Director, CGHS has been done
on the basis of „seniority cum suitability‟ and not on seniority alone.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws our attention to the
relevant extract of the noting file of the respondent No.1, annexed to the
present petition as Annexure P-5, wherein it has been clarified that an officer
of the Senior Administrative Grade in GDMO sub-cadre of CHS is
appointed as Director, CGHS on the basis of „seniority cum suitability‟ of
the officer to the specific post of Director as also the fact that there are no
recruitment rules for appointment of Director, CGHS and other similar
administrative posts.
7. Having regard to the specific stand taken by the respondent
No.1/Union of India itself, as noted above, we are of the opinion that this
aspect ought to have engaged the attention of the learned Tribunal while
deciding the present case. However, the impugned judgment does not reflect
so as there is no discussion in relation thereto. We, therefore, deem it
appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2017 and
remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits
while taking into consideration the fact position noted above.
8. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 09.11.2017, for a date
to be fixed for addressing arguments. The Tribunal is requested to dispose of
the matter by taking a fresh view on the aspects highlighted above, as
expeditiously as is possible.
9. The petition is disposed of. No orders as to costs.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
OCTOBER 27, 2017
na/rkb/ap
