J.B.Sharma v. UOI & Ors

PRATEEK JALAN, J

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J APRIL 22, 2019 "hkaur/pv"

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 28.03.2019 Pronounced on : 22.04.2019 + W.P.(C) 2329/2007 & CM Appl. 46928/2018 J.B. SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in Person. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shashwat Sharma, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN MR.JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN % 1. The petitioner's challenge in this writ petition is to a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter, "the Tribunal"] dated 03.01.2007 in O.A. No.285/2006 by which his application was dismissed. 2. The petitioner joined the services of the Indian Council of Medical Research [hereinafter, "ICMR"] on 27.12.1971 as a Senior Stenographer by direct recruitment. He was promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant ["SPA"] on 18.04.1977 and was upgraded as Private Secretary ["PS"] w.e.f. 04.06.1983. By an earlier application to the Tribunal [O.A.No.1134/2005] the petitioner raised a grievance that he had been overlooked for further promotion to the post of Administrative Officer ["AO"] although a person junior to him had been promoted. In view of the fact that his statutory appeal was then pending before the ICMR, the Tribunal disposed of the petitioner's application on 27.05.2005, by directing a time bound disposal of that appeal. His appeal was disposed of on 13.08.2005, which was challenged by the petitioner in the present proceedings on merits, as well as on the ground that it had been passed by an incompetent authority, viz. Dr.N.K.Ganguly [respondent No.3 herein]. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's claim both with regard to his seniority and with regard to the competent disposal of his appeal. 3. The petitioner, appearing in person, contended that one Mr.Prem Singh, although junior to the petitioner, was promoted to the post of AO on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 10.02.1988 and subsequently to the post of Senior Administrative Officer ["SAO"], also on ad-hoc basis, from 12.09.1994/31.03.1995. The petitioner's claim is that he ought to have been considered for promotion to these posts at the same time, but instead was promoted to the post of AO only on 04.04.1990 and SAO on 01.11.1996. In support of his contention that he was eligible for promotion to the post of AO in 1988, the petitioner cites a circular of ICMR dated 26.11.1981, which indicates that the feeder posts for promotion to AO are those of PS and Section Officer ["SO"]. With regard to the eligibility of a person holding the post of PS for promotion to AO, the circular provides as follows: "If we draw an analogy from the above, then for promotion to Administrative Officers" posts only a Private Secretary can be considered along with eligible Section Officers, provided: i) he has put in at least 8 years" service as PS. A regularly appointed SO also has to put in 8 years of service as SO for consideration for promotion as Administrative Officer. In counting 8 years of service, entire service as PS and half of service as SPA will be taken into account. ii) before PS is considered for promotion, he should have worked for at least 2 years as Section Officer and if he has not worked as such, a specific approval of the Director General has to be obtained for the relaxation." 4. Applying this formula, the petitioner contends that in 1988, when Mr.Prem Singh was considered for promotion, the petitioner had satisfied the eligibility criteria for promotion, as he had served for over six years as SPA [of which half was to be counted] and five years as PS. The petitioner claims that having served in the feeder cadre for a longer period than Mr.Prem Singh, he ought to have been considered at that time. [In the OA before CAT, the petitioner also raised the ground that Mr.Prem Singh was ineligible for promotion. However, this was not argued before us.] 5. The second aspect of the petitioner's challenge is with respect to the competence of respondent No.3 to dispo