AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A):
The applicant has filed the instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
“a)To quash the impugned orders;
b)to direct the Respondents to promote the applicant w.e.f. 30.12.2018 after counting the ad hoc period as regular service; and
c)Any other order, as may be deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal.”
Brief facts of the case, as narrated by the applicant in the OA are, that he is a Group-A Officer of Central Secretariat Official Language Service (hereinafter referred to as ‘CSOLS’). He was initially recruited through UPSC as Assistant Director (Group-B) in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- in 1994. Subsequently, on recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the post of Assistant Director was upgraded as Group-A post in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
The Cadre Controlling Authority of CSOLS officers is Department of Official Language and the said service is governed by Central Secretariat Official Language Service (Group-A and Group-B) Rules [hereinafter referred to as ‘Recruitment Rules’], which were amended from time to time. In 1994, when the applicant had been appointed as Assistant Director, he was governed by the Recruitment Rules, 1983. In supersession of the said Rules, new rules were introduced in 2006 which were further amended in 2015, which are reproduced hereunder:-
| Sl. No. | Grade | Method of Recruitment | Field of promotion |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Assistant Director | 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. | |
| 2 | Deputy Director | By promotion failing which by deputation. | Assistant Director with six years regular service in the grade failing which Asstt. Director having eight years combined regular service in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and Rs.7500-12000. |
| 3 | Joint Director | 75% by promotion and 25% by deputation. | Deputy Director having five years regular service in the grade, failing which Deputy Director with 11 years combined regular service in the grade of Deputy Director and Assistant Director in pay scale of 7500-12000 failing both, Deputy Director having 13 years combined regular service in the grade of Deputy Director and Assistant Director in pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 and Rs.6500-10500. |
| 4 | Director | 40% by promotion and 60% by deputation. | Joint Director having 5 years regular service in the grade, failing which Joint Director with 10 years combined service in the grade of Joint Director and Deputy Director having minimum 3 years regular service in Dy. Director grade. |
As per the aforesaid Recruitment Rules, the applicant was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director in the year 2006 itself, but he was promoted on the said post in April, 2010 on ad hoc basis and on regular basis only w.e.f. 14.02.2011 for want of holding of DPC in time.
The applicant was further promoted to the next higher grade, i.e., Joint Director on ad hoc basis vide order dated 19.11.2013 and he joined the said post on 30.12.2013. He was promoted as Joint Director on regular basis only w.e.f. 08.03.2017. The said regular promotion was also considerably delayed due to non-holding of DPC in time. Though DoP&T has always been insisting upon Cadre Controlling Authorities for timely holding of DPC meetings by way of OMs on the subject, yet it has been the practice of the respondents to delay DPC meetings for many years without any rhyme or reason because of which the applicant suffered a lot in getting timely promotions at every stage.
14 out of 18 posts of Director remained vacant because of delay in holding DPC meetings and many candidates, who were otherwise eligible for promotion to the post of Director, became ineligible. After retirement of two more Directors, 16 out of 18 posts remained vacant as on 30.11.2019. Moreover, due to delay in holding of DPC, ad hoc service rendered by the applicant could not be counted towards regular service. Had the said ad hoc service been counted as regular service or DPC had been held in time, he would have been eligible for promotion to the post of Director in the Recruitment Year 2017-18.
Respondent no.2 i.e. Cadre Controlling Authority informed respondent no.1 that the post of Director cannot be kept vacant for such a long time as the said post is the key post for implementation of official language policy as well as translation work on account of tremendous pressure during Parliament Sessions, and sent a proposal vide note dated 25.10.2018 for relaxation in eligibility conditions for promotion of 14 Joint Directors to Director on ad hoc basis including the applicant, whose name figured at serial no.4, which is reproduced as under:-
| Sl. No. | Name | Total service as JD (DD+JD) as on 23.10.2018 | Relaxation required as on 23.10.2018. |
| 1 | Sunil Kumar | 2y.5m (13y.3m) | 7 months |
| 2 | Dr. V.P. Dubey | 2y.5m (7y.8m) | 2 Yrs. 4 months |
| 3 | Poornima Sharma | 2y.5m (7y.8m) | 2 Yrs. 4 months |
| 4 | Shailesh Kumar Singh | 1 y.7 m(7y.8m) | 2 Yrs. 4 months |
Respondent no.1 in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner granted relaxation of three candidates but rejected the claim of the applicant, who also needed relaxation of 2 years and 4 months. The said act of respondent no.1 was violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
In a nutshell, the main thrust of argument of the applicant is that had the ad hoc service rendered by him been counted as regular service, he would have been promoted. The other ground raised by the applicant is that on account of delay in holding DPCs, employees cannot be made to suffer. In support of his claim, the applicant has relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Sahadeva Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No.5549/2007 decided on 28.02.2007] and Sunil Kumar Mehra vs. MCD & Anr. [WP(C) No.2059/2012 decided on 08.05.2013] where ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner therein was directed to be counted towards regular service on the said post.
Per contra, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit in reply opposing the claim of the applicant. They have stated that the applicant, who was initially appointed as Assistant Director, was promoted to the post of Deputy Director on ad hoc basis in the year 2010 and was promoted to the said post on regular basis on 14.02.2011 against the vacancy of 2010-11. He was further promoted as Joint Director on ad hoc basis on 19.11.2013 against deputation quota vacancy and on a regular basis on 08.03.2017 against the vacancy of 2015-16. The applicant was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria for vacancy year 2019 as on 01.01.2019, i.e., the crucial date to be considered for regular promotion to the post of Director as per Recruitment Rules, 2015.
DoP&T’s guidelines regarding relaxation in eligibility criteria provide that whenever combined service in two levels (below the promotion level) has been prescribed as qualifying service for promotion to a higher level in the RRs, no further relaxation is granted for promotion. Moreover, as a matter of policy, DoP&T does not encourage promotion on ad hoc basis. As per DoP&T’s OM dated 29.10.1975 reiterated in OMs dated 30.03.1998, 23.07.2001 and 03.04.2013, ad hoc promotions do not bestow on a person a claim for regular appointment and the service rendered on ad hoc basis in the grade concerned also does not count for the purpose of seniority in that grade and for eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade. This clause had already been clarified in the letter promoting the applicant on ad hoc basis.
Respondent no.2 sent proposal twice to DoP&T (respondent no.1) seeking relaxation in eligibility conditions for promotion to the post of Director. In the first proposal, relaxation was sought for 14 Directors (including the applicant at Sl. No.4) for promotion. However, DoP&T granted relaxation in respect of 03 Joint Directors, who were senior to the applicant. In the second proposal sent on 26.07.2019 seeking relaxation for 12 Joint Directors, but the DoP&T did not give any relaxation.
The department sought clarification from DoP&T regarding course of action required to be taken due to delay in convening DPC meetings. DoP&T, in turn, vide its letter dated 06.11.2019 informed that there is no provision in the rules for grant of notional promotion to an employee from a retrospective date for non-convening of timely DPC meetings for that recruitment year. As such, the department could not promote the applicant to the post of Joint Director from the date of his ad hoc promotion, i.e., w.e.f. 30.12.2013 for the purpose of further promotions.
The applicant has also filed a rejoinder denying the contentions of the respondents and reiterated the averments made in the OA. The contention of the respondents that till the vacancy year 2013-14, the applicant was governed by SR’s 2006 and was eligible for promotion to the post of Director as per provision of 11 years of combined service in the grade of Deputy Director but he was not considered for regular promotion as no vacancy was available at the relevant point of time, is not correct as the respondents had themselves informed under RTI Act that there were 12 vacant posts of Joint Director in the year 2011-12. Moreover, as a result of cadre review in 2011, additionally 16 posts of Joint Directors were created which were required to be filled by promotion. Further, the contention of respondents that the applicant was promoted to the post of Joint Director on ad hoc basis on 19.11.2013 against the deputation quota vacancy is absurd and absolutely false.
We have heard Mr. A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. H.K. Gangwani, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
It is seen that the applicant has himself conceded that he along with others did not have the requisite eligibility condition prescribed for regular promotion to the post of Joint Director. His name along others was proposed for relaxation of the eligibility condition and the same was accepted by the DoP&T for three other persons, but not for the applicant. Had his name also been approved by the DoP&T, he would have been given the same benefit. Therefore, inasmuch as the applicant did not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed for regular promotion to the post of Joint Director and proposal for relaxation of the same had been rejected by the DoP&T, we find that the applicant has no case for seeking the benefit of regular promotion to the post of Joint Director. It is also not the case of the applicant that anyone junior to him has been given this benefit.
In view of the above discussion, the present OA lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.