UOI and Anr v. Rk Trivedi and Anr

SANJIV KHANNA, J. SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 dk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.665/2011 Judgment reserved on: 4th August, 2011 % Judgment pronounced on: 14th September, 2011 Union of India & Anr. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Saqib, Advocate. versus R.K. Trivedi & Anr. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Piyush Sharma, Advocate for R-1. Mr.Naresh Kaushik and Ms. Aditi, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ The respondent No.1, being grieved by the action of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), which considered 7 retired persons for promotion to the post of Assistant Director(Grade-I) as per the instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training(DOPT) for preparation of an extended panel for only three persons whereas it was incumbent on the DPC to prepare an extended panel of 4 retired persons as per the DOPT office memorandum No.22011/8/87 – Estt.(D) dated 9.4.1996, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short, "the tribunal") in OA No.2156/2009 for issuance of direction to the respondents to convene a review DPC for the post of Assistant Director(Grade-I) and include his name in the extended panel. It was contended before the tribunal that 4 persons retired in the vacancy year 2004-05 out of which one D.R. Chakravarty retired on 31.3.2005 but the authorities did not count the said vacancy to have occurred in the vacancy year 2004-05 as a consequence of which serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 2. The undisputed fact is that the vacancy year is from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005. The DPC met on 27.12.2005 to consider the promotion in respect of 17 posts (14 unreserved, 2 scheduled castes and 1 scheduled tribes category) in the grade of Assistant Director (Grade-I) in the Directorate General of Supply and Disposal. The DPC recommended 15 names and in the extended panel kept 3 names. As on 27.12.2005, 7 officers had already retired and, therefore, it necessitated preparation of the extended panel, as per the DOPT office memorandum dated 9.4.1996. Relying on the said office memorandum, it was contended before the tribunal that the language employed in the said office memorandum stipulates that the extended panel is to be prepared keeping in view the vacancies arising in a particular vacancy year. As D.R. Chakravarty was retiring on 31.3.2005, his vacancy should have been treated to be vacancy for the vacancy year 2004- 05 not 2005-06. 3. The aforesaid stand put forth by the respondent was rebutted by the present petitioners contending, inter alia, that the vacancy arose on 1.4.2005 and, therefore, the DPC had appositely prepared the extended panel of three persons. The tribunal referred to the DOPT office memorandum dated 9.4.1996 and the earlier office memorandums dated 10.4.1989, 17.10.1994, 20.4.1998 and came to hold that the vacancy occurred within the year, that is, 31st March, 2005. The tribunal interpreted that the term "within the year" has to be read in the context of the year mentioned all through in the instructions and the "year" mentioned is "the vacancy year" and nowhere is it even remotely hinted that 31st March would be excluded from the "vacancy year" or any vacancy occurring on the 31st March would not be taken into account for calculating the vacancy for the "vacancy year". Being of this view, the tribunal directed the present petitioners to convene a meeting of the review DPC for the post of Assistant Director (Grade-I) and include the name of the applicant respondent herein in the extended panel and if he is found fit by the DPC, promote him from the date his immediate junior was promoted. 4. We have heard Mr. Saquib, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Piyush Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, and Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned