Delhi High Court
Jasbir Singh Bhalla & Anr vs Uoi & Ors. on 16 January, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~80 & 81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3091/2007, CM APPLs. 15447/2007 & 6593/2008
JASBIR SINGH BHALLA & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Tanuj Bagga Sharma and
Dr. M.K. Ravi, Advs.
versus
UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC
with Mr. Jatin Teotia and Ms. Aishani
Mohan, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with Ms.
Akansha Choudhary and Mr. Saksham Sethi,
Advs. for R-1 & 2.
Mr. K.S. Rama Rao, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 9132/2007
K.ZACHARIAH & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. K.S. Rama Rao, Adv.
versus
UOI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC
with Mr. Jatin Teotia and Ms. Aishani
Mohan, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Ravinder Agarwal and Mr. Manish
Kumar, Advs. for R-3/UPSC.
Mrs. Tanuj Bagga Sharma and Dr. M.K.
Ravi, Advs. for R-4 & 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3091/2007 & W.P.(C) 9132/2007 Page 1 of 5
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:18.01.2025
20:37:38
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 16.01.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. Both these writ petitions are directed against judgment dated 16
March 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA
2498 of 2005.
2. The issue before the Tribunal related to promotions to the grade
of Principal Private Secretary in the Armed Forces Headquarters. The
promotions were made in respect of vacancies which had arisen in
2003-2004. The contention of the applicants before the Tribunal was
that the earlier applicable Armed Forces Headquarters Stenographers'
Service (Private Secretary Grade) Rules, 19902 had been superseded
by the Armed Forces Headquarters Stenographers' (Group A and
Group B posts) Service Rules, 20043 and that, as the DPC had met on
12 October 2004, the 2004 Rules ought to have been applied by the
DPC. Instead, the DPC applied the 1990 Rules which, according to the
applicants before the Tribunal, was erroneous.
3. The Supreme Court had, in its judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah v J.
Sreenivasa Rao4, held that the rules which are applicable would be the
rules which are in force on the date when the vacancies arose. A sole
1 "the Tribunal", hereinafter
2 "the 1990 Rules", hereinafter
3 "the 2004 Rules", hereinafter
4 (1983) 3 SCC 284
relaxation to this principle was engrafted by the Supreme Court in its
subsequent judgment in K. Ramulu v Suryaprakash Das5, in a case
where there was a conscious decision to defer the holding of the DPC
either awaiting amendment of the rules or for any other reason. The
Supreme Court held that, in such a circumstance, the Rangaiah
principle would not apply.
4. The Tribunal has held, in the impugned judgment, that the case
is covered by Rangaiah and that, as the vacancies considered by the
DPC arose prior to the coming into effect of the 2004 Rules, the DPC
had correctly applied the 1990 Rules.
5. This conclusion is predicated on the premise, which flows from
Rangaiah, that the rules which would apply would be those in effect
on the date when the vacancies arose.
6. Rangaiah, however, has since been expressly overruled by the
Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v Raj Kumar6.
7. As such, it may not be possible to uphold the decision of the
Supreme Court which is predicated on Rangaiah. However, as Raj
Kumar has been rendered recently in 2023, much after the impugned
judgment came to be pronounced, we, with consent of parties, deem it
appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions by setting aside the
impugned judgment dated 16 March 2007 passed by the Tribunal and
5 1997 (3) SCC 59
6 (2023) 3 SCC 773
remanding OA 2498 of 2005 to the Tribunal for a decision afresh, in
view of the judgment in Raj Kumar.
8. We express no opinion on the merits of the controversy between
the parties. All issues of fact and law shall remain open to be agitated
before the Tribunal.
9. Needless to say, however, the Tribunal would not be
encumbered by any of the observations contained in the impugned
judgment.
10. As this litigation is already of 17 years' vintage, we direct the
parties to appear before the Tribunal on 27 January 2025. We request
the Tribunal not to adjourn the matters on the said date and to take up
the matters for final hearing and to pronounce judgment thereon as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks
of the hearing.
11. In order to facilitate the hearing before the Tribunal, all parties
are directed to file, at least five days in advance of the next date of
hearing, written submissions not exceeding six pages each, after
exchanging copies with each other, with the Registry of the Tribunal.
12. The submissions, as and when filed, would be placed before the
Bench of the Tribunal which would be hearing the matters.
13. These writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
14. At this juncture, Mr. K.S. Rama Rao points out that WP(C)
204/2008 filed by the Union of India against the impugned judgment
is also pending before this Court. We are informed that Rule DB
stands issued in the matter which is on the Regular Board. However,
as the Union of India is not aware of the said matter, we direct the
Registry to list WP (C) 204/2008 before the Court on 20 January
2025, before we dispose of the said matter in the terms of the present
order.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
JANUARY 16, 2025/AS
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
