CHAITANYA AMBALAL SOMANI Vs. PRAVINCHANDRA D RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Appeal No. 14404 of 1996, the appellant, who was selected and promoted on ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineer in the Union Territory of daman and Diu, assailed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, bombay Bench, in OA No. 1053 of 1992. Respondent 1 who was also a junior Engineer along with the appellant in the said Union Territory, filed an application before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the Departmental promotion Committee did not take the appropriate criteria for adjudging the inter se seniority for promotion in question and that the Departmental promotion Committee was not duly constituted in accordance with the relevant office memorandum and as such the decision taken by the said departmental Promotion Committee is vitiated. The Tribunal relying upon the earlier decision of the said Tribunal having set aside the appointment made in favour of the appellant, the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) On the facts averred, it appears that the appellant was appointed as junior Engineer in January 1976 whereas Respondent 1, who was the applicant before the Tribunal was appointed as Junior Engineer on 6-2-1976. A post of Assistant Engineer having fallen vacant in the year 1987, the departmental Promotion Committee considered the cases of all the eligible persons and selected the appellant. On the basis of the said selection, the appellant was appointed on promotion as Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis on 18-1-1990. Respondent 1 approached the Tribunal in the year 1992 assailing the aforesaid promotion of the appellant to the post of Assistant engineer. As already stated, the Tribunal being of the opinion that the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee is vitiated, as held earlier, in OA No. 138 of 1990 and that the relevant guidelines issued by the ministry of Personnel, Government of India not having been followed, as held by the said Tribunal in OA No. 302 of 1990, set aside the appointment of the appellant to the post of Assistant Engineer and directed that fresh and proper Departmental Promotion Committee should be constituted and the process of selection may be made afresh. It is this order and direction of the tribunal which is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

(3.) Mr B. N. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that the Departmental Promotion Committee committed serious error in not following the guidelines of the Ministry of Personnel, Government of India inasmuch as the said guidelines had never been adopted by the administration of Daman and Diu. At any rate, the post in question had fallen vacant prior to the issuance of the aforesaid guidelines and therefore the said guidelines could not have formed the basis for determining the criteria for promotion. On the question of invalidity of the constitution of the Departmental promotion Committee, it is contended that in the absence of any statutory rules and on the basis of a memorandum a Departmental Promotion committee having been constituted, it would be well within the power of the said Committee to take the assistance of an expert for assessing the technical abilities to adjudge the suitability for promotion and therefore even if an expert like the Superintending Engineer was assisting the Departmental promotion Committee, the ultimate decision of the Departmental Promotion committee would not be vitiated. It was also further contended that the constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee which was the subject-matter for consideration in OA No. 138 of 1990 was for the post of executive Engineer and not for Assistant Engineer.