Karnataka High Court

The Director, vs C Harikrishnan on 27 January, 2021

Author: Satish Chandra Srishananda

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                      PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

                        AND

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

      WRIT PETITION NO.50815 OF 2019 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE DIRECTOR,
GAS TURBINE RESEARCH
ESTABLISHMENT,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, DRDO,
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 093.

2. CHAIRMAN, DRDO AND
SECRETARY DEFENCE (R&D)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
DRDO HQRS, DRDO BHAWAN,
RAJAJI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 011.

3. UNION OF INDIA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 011.
                                     ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SHASHIKANTHA C, ASG.)

AND

1. C HARIKRISHNAN
S/O. LATE N. R. CHANDRASHEKARAN PILLAI,
OCCUPATION: SENIOR STORES OFFICER GR.1
                           2



GAS TURBINE RESEARCH
ESTABLISHMENT (GTRE),
DRDO, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 093.

2. D.C. PARMAR, SAO-I
NAVAL MATERIALS RESEARCH
LABORATORY (NMRL),
DRDO, HIGHWAY ROAD,
T CIRCLE, EAST AMBERNATH,
SHIL, BADIPUR - KATAI ROAD,
MIDC AREA, AMBERNATH-421 506,
(MAHARASTRA)

3. AMIT KUMAR SINGH, SAO-I
CENTRE FOR FIRE,
EXPLOSIVE AND ENVIRONMENT
SAFELY (CFEES), DRDO BIGAD,
SK MAZUMDAR MARG,
TIMARPUR, DELHI-110 054.

4. GAURAV MISHRA, SAO-I
LASER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
CENTRE (LASTEC),
DRDO METCALFE HOUSE,
DELHI-110 054.

5. SANTANU BANERJEE, SAO-I
DEFENCE FOOD RESEARCH
LABORATORY (DFRL),
DRDO, SIDDHARTH NAGAR,
MYSORE-570 011,
(KARNATAKA).

6. ANUPAM PANDEY, SAO- I
DEFENCE ELECTRONICS APPLICATION
LABORATORY (DEAL)
DRDO, POST BOX 54,
RAIPUR ROAD,
DEHRADUN-248 001
(UTTARAKHAND)
                          3



7. DEEPTHI BHARDWAJ, SAO-I
DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL,
DRDO BHAWAN, RAJAJI MARG,
NEW DELHI-110 001.

8. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SAO- I
GAS TURBINE RESEARCH
ESTABLISHMENT (GTRE)
DRDO, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 093,
(KARNATAKA).

9. PRAKASH SINGH, SAO-I
JOINT CYPHER BUREAU (JCB),
DRDO, METCALFE HOUSE COMPLEX,
DELHI-110 054.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.S.BIJU AND
SMT. JAYA NAMBIAR BIJU, ADV. FOR C/R-1,
SRI S.PRAKASH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R3 TO R6 AND R8,
SRI GAUTHAM S.BHARADWAJ, ADV. FOR R7,
R2 AND R9 - SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT.)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2019 AND 01.04.2019
IN O.A.NO.170/812/2018 (ANNEXURE-A AND B), PASSED
BY HON'BLE CAT, BANGALORE BENCH AND ALLOW THE
PETITIONERS TO CONDUCT DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION
TO THE POST OF CAO BY DPC (IN THE CASE UPSC) FOR
THE YEAR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF CAO BY DPC (IN
THIS CASE UPSC) FOR THE YEAR DPC-2019 IN
COMPLIANCE WITH SRO 53 DATED 8.7.2013 AND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RULE AT THE EARLIEST ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                                4




                          ORDER

The present petition is arising out of judgment

dated 22.03.2019 passed in Original Application

No.812/2018 (Sri. C. Harikrishnan vs. The Director,

Gas Turbine & Research Establishment and others).

2. The facts of the case reveal that

Sri.Harikrishnan C, who is respondent No.1 before this

Court has preferred Original Application No.812/2018

and has claimed proper placement in the cadre of

Store Officers with effect from 2001 even though he

was appointed on 04.07.2003, meaning thereby by

filing OA in the year 2018 he was seeking proper

placement in the gradation list with effect from 2001.

However, in the relief clause, he has also prayed for

promotion to the post of Chief Administrative Officer

with effect from 01st January, 2018. It is also

pertinent to note that neither at the time the Original

Application was filed nor today, he has been promoted

to the post of Chief Administrative Officer.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the

outset has drawn the attention of this Court to the

manner and method the Original Application has been

dealt with by the Central Administrative Tribunal and

his contention is that the opportunity of hearing was

not granted to the respondents in the Original

Application and the respondents, who were later

impleaded in the Original Application.

4. The order sheet, which is on record dated

03.08.2018 reveals that notice were issued by the

Tribunal for the first time on 03.08.2018. The order

dated 03.08.2018 reads as under:-

'Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents by Dasti.

We are not inclined to grant interim order. If, any promotion is to be granted, the promotees will be informed that their promotion will be subject to the result of the OA. Post the matter on 17.9.2018.'

5. Thereafter, the matter was listed on

17.09.2018. The order sheet reads as under:-

'Learned counsel for the applicant is present. Shri HR. Sreedhara, Learned counsel appears for the respondents. 4 weeks for reply, 2 weeks for rejoinder.

     Post    the       matter     on    17.12.2018        for
     hearing.'


     6.     The        matter    was     then     taken     up   on

14.02.2019 and the learned counsel for the applicant

sought time to implead several party respondents.

The order dated 14.02.2019 reads as under:-

'Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to implead several party respondents whom he consider to be ineligible for being considered by the DPC. Since the DPC is now held up by the interim order, he will do so within one week next. We had clarified this position with Smt. Padma Priya, Departmental Representative. She would submit that in relation to one person in the list, she may not be eligible but then that may be

because of another court case since we do not know whether any rightful reason prevented her from being appointed earlier, so that she may have right for notional consideration of residency.

Therefore, post the matter on 20.2.2019.'

7. Thereafter, the matter was listed on

20.02.2019, meaning thereby only after four days and

the respondent - Union of India was directed to

inform the newly impleaded parties to file a reply

within the said time and to file an affidavit to the said

effect. Normally, proper practice by the Central

Administrative Tribunal is that the applicant is directed

to pay the process fee and serve the respondents.

Whereas in this particular case, the Union of India,

who was also a respondent was directed to serve

other respondents and inform the Tribunal whether

any reply was filed or not.

8. The order dated 20.02.2019 reads as

under:-

'MA NO. 68/2019 impleading application is allowed. Issue notice by dasti. Newly impleaded parties to file reply within two weeks. Post the matter for reply and further hearing on 15.03.2019.

Respondents are also directed to inform the newly impleaded parties that, if they want to, they may file a reply within that time. The respondents will file an affidavit explaining that this has been explained to the concerned parties.'

9. The matter was thereafter taken up on

15.03.2019 and the order reads as under:

'Learned counsel for both sides are present. Shri Izzhar Ahmed appears for R5, 6, 9 & 10. R7 & R8 have not appeared yet. It appears that they have been served.

R7 & 8 were called and they are absent and they are set exparte. Other respondents to file reply and complete the

process before 18.3.2019 as per the stipulation of Shri Izzhar Ahmed. Shri Izzhar Ahmed points out that applicant may need to file condonation of delay application also. If he is so advised, Shri Biju may do so. Post the matter on 22.3.2019 for disposal.'