Krishan Kumar vs Union Of India & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant is working as Deputy Secretary, in the Selection Grade, of Central Secretariat Service (CSS). The next promotion is to Senior Section

Grade (Director). A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met for consideration of cases for promotion in Senior Selection Grade (Director)

w.e.f. 18.09.2018. Successful completion of Level (F) training programme is mandatory for promotion to the post of SSG (Director). The applicant did

not complete the training, by the time the DPC met. Therefore, the DPC did not consider the cases of the applicant and two others, though they were

otherwise seniors, in the cadre of Deputy Secretary.

The applicant contends that the DPC ought to have recommended his case for promotion, indicating that it would take place as and when he

completes his training, and instead it has declared him as unfit. This OA is filed challenging the Minutes of the DPC that met on 18.09.2018, and for a

direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Director, from 01.07.2017 onwards. The applicant contends that though the training at level

(F) is mandatory, the DPC could have suggested or recommended his name. There was absolutely no justification in declaring him unfit.

By referring to the promotions, which took place in the year 2016, he contends that the promotions were subject to the candidates clearing the

training and such a facility was not extended to him.

The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. According to them, successful completion of the level (f) training is mandatory for promotion and

the applicant completed the same only on 13.11.2018, long after the DPC met. It is stated that the applicant was not eligible to be considered at all,

and obviously for that reason, the DPC did not consider his case. It is also stated that the applicant would be considered for promotion as and when

the next DPC meets.

We heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, at length, through

video conferencing.

It is no doubt true that the applicant completed the required standing in the feeder category, for promotion to the level of Senior Selection Grade

(Director) in CSS. It is not in dispute that successful completion of level (F) training is mandatory for next promotion. The applicant could not complete

the same by the time the DPC met on 18.09.2018.

Two courses were open to the DPC. One was to consider the cases of all employees, who have completed training and are within the zone of

consideration. The second was, to consider the cases of those, who are in the zone of consideration, including the Deputy Secretaries, who did not

complete the training, stipulating that their promotions would be effective from the date on which they complete the training. The DPC, in the instant

case, has chosen the first course and declined to consider any case where the candidate did not complete the training. No exception can be taken to

that. In fact, on an earlier occasion, the DPC recommended the case of employees, who were not eligible but recommended their cases to be

effective from the date on which they complete the training. That, however, is in the discretion of the concerned DPC and no ‘hard and fast’

rule can be applied in this behalf. Once the DPC has chosen to confine its recommendations only to the employees, who have completed the training,

the applicant cannot claim any right, much less with retrospective date. Now that the applicant has completed the training, the next DPC has to

consider his case.

One aspect, which, however, needs to be taken into account, is that even while observing that it did not consider the case of those persons who did

not complete the training, the DPC declared the applicant as unfit and ineligible. This is impermissible in law.

We, therefore, dispose of the OA directing that when the next DPC meets for promotion to the Senior Selection Grade (Director) in CSS, the case

of the applicant shall be considered. It is hoped that the constitution of the DPC would be expedited since the applicant and other similarly situated

persons are likely to attain the age of superannuation.

There shall be no order as to costs.