Union Of India & Ors. vs Ravinder Kumar & Ors.

Harvinder Oberoi, Member (J)

The present Review Application has been preferred by the respondents in the OA seeking review of the Order dated 08.04.2024.

The review applicants in the review have stated that the applicants herein vide their office letter dated 13.6.2018 [Annexure-A-3 to OA], initiated a selection for promotion from Group 'C' to Group 'B' to the post of Assistant Commercial Officer against 30% quota vacancies for the assessment period 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2019 for filling up 7 vacancies (UR-6, SC-1, ST-Nil). Applications were called from the candidates eligible for the same as per criteria laid down therein.

It is also stated that in terms of letter dated 7.5.2019 [Annexure-A-4 to OA of the applicants herein], a number of 11 (UR) candidates were qualified in the written test and 06 (SC) candidates were also qualified under 'relaxed standard' in the written test held on 22.12.2018.

The respondent No.1 herein also qualified in the written test held on 22.12.2018 as detailed at item 08 of letter dated 7.5.2019 [Annexure-A-4 to OA]. It is further stated that the Selection Committee considered the service records of the qualified candidates on 20.08.2019 and based on the total marks, i.e., written examination and service records, the final result was published on 12.09.2019.

In this regard, the applicants have approached the Tribunal. One of the argument was that the APARs of respondent no.2 for relevant five years were not available or at least were initiated and returned after the result of the written examination. In such a situation how could the respondent no.2 be promoted. The counsel explained that respondents have not only filed their counter affidavit but had also filed the additional affidavit explaining that there was no procedural lapse in the selection to the post of ACM and neither the validity of APARs of respondent no.2 had been challenged. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law in allowing the OA and issuing the directions.

The Review Applicant had laid stress to say that the contention of the respondents was not recorded by the Tribunal although the officers of the respondents were called to explain the promotion of respondent no.2 when admittedly the APARs had been completed after the declaration of result.

Counsel stated that the counter affidavit and the additional affidavit of the respondents explained the rules and instructions under which the selection was undertaken. The rules and the instructions have also not been considered by the Tribunal without recording which rule. Hence, the Review Petition.

Further it was stated that the Review Application has been filed after grant of liberty by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition no.13101/2024.

Counsel for the review respondents has opposed the Review Application and submitted that the final order has to be read along with the running order sheet in the OA. It is stated that the running order sheet itself would show that the matter was heard by the Tribunal on few occasions and had ultimately culminated in the final order. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondents were not heard or the counter affidavit has not been considered.

We have considered the rival submissions.

We have gone through the order of the Tribunal as well as the order sheets and other documents on the file. It is noticed that the final order does not record the submission of the respondents although from the running order sheet it is evident that enough opportunity was given to the respondents as well.

In the interest of justice, we allow the present Review Application and direct to recall of the order dated 08.04.2024 and further direct that the Original Application be listed for final hearing on 25.08.2025 at 2.30 PM.

Further the review applicants (respondents in OA) are also directed to bring the records of the DPC/Selection Committee which had considered the promotion of the original applicant and respondent no.2 from level 6 to level 7.

During the course of the arguments, the original applicant has stressed that three APARs of the applicant and respondent no.2 were to be considered in the LDCE under question. He submitted that the respondents have falsely stated that the APARs were not available since they were considered by the DPC for promotion for Level 6 to 7 also. This can be verified from the records of the promotion as well. Hence we deem it necessary that the DPC records of promotion concerning the applicant and the private respondents be produced on the next date.

The Original Application shall be heard finally on 25.08.2025 at 2.30 PM. Respondents to bring the relevant DPC Minutes and other records for promotion from level 6 to level 7 as well as LDCE records.