Satyendra Singh Tewatia vs Jiwaji University

Sujoy Paul, J.—Since the matters are arising out of similar facts and circumstances, on the joint request of the parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by common order in W.P. No. 2027/14 and 1762/2014.

The facts are taken from W.P. No. 2027/14.

The petitioner submits that he is eligible for consideration for promotion on the post of Section Officer. He is substantively holding feeder post of Superintendent. Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners alongwith other eligible candidates were considered in DPC which was convened on 06.08.2013. However, the recommendations of DPC were not given effect to/implemented in the present petition. It is prayed that respondents be directed to implement the recommendation of DPC for the promotional post of Section Officer. The respondents filed their return and stated that the recommendations of DPC were not opened on account of pendency of W.P. No. 1352/13 (Asha Arora and Others Vs. Jiwaji University) in which interim orders have been passed. This Court on 09.07.2014 asked Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents to show as to how the said writ petition or order passed in the said case can be implemented in the present petition? This question was asked for the reason that in the said case (W.P. No. 1352/13) the petitioners are UDC''s and are seeking promotion to the post of Office Assistant.

In obedience of this Court''s order dated 09.07.2014, the respondents have filed an additional return. In the additional return, it is averred that "there is no connection between the two matters, however, since in W.P. No. 1352/13, an undertaking was given by the Counsel of University that no further promotions will take place", the recommendation was not implemented.

Shri R.S. Sharma submits that the pendency of W.P. No. 1352/13 cannot be an impediment for the present petitioners. He fairly submits that there is no thread relation between these to cadres, the feeder and the promotional posts are different.

Considering the aforesaid, an undertaking in any other case cannot be a ground to deprive the present petitioners. More so, when there is no parity in the matter, the post from which and to which promotions are to be made are different.

This is settled in law that right of consideration for promotion is not only a statutory right but it is also a fundamental/constitutional right. The respondents have already convened the DPC. No other reason is shown to this Court for not implementing the recommendations of DPC.

Accordingly, respondents are directed to implement the recommendations of DPC in accordance with law by passing appropriate order. It is expected that this exercise will be completed within thirty days from the date of communication of order passed by this Court.

With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of.