UNION OF INDIA Vs. L.R. MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CALLING in question the legal defensibility of the order dated 14th December, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short the tribunal) in OA No. 718/2010, the Union of India and its functionaries have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the same.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary to be stated for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition are that the first respondent approached the tribunal in OA No.2846/2009 for issuance of a direction to the respondents therein to take action on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and the tribunal vide order dated 12th October, 2009 directed that the applicant therein was at least entitled to know the reasons why the recommendations made by duly constituted DPC had not been given effect to and, accordingly, directed the respondents therein to deal with the representation dated 24.09.2009. After the said order, the present petitioners, who were the respondents before the tribunal, gave the following information to the first respondent herein: Subject: Representation dated 24.9.2009 from Shri LR Meena, DDGM (ISSD) reg. promotion to the post of ADGM on implementation of DPC. The undersigned is directed to refer to the subject mentioned above and in pursuance of order dated 12.10.2009 of Hon. CAT, Principal Bench in OA No.2846/2009 and order dated 1.12.2009 in MA No.2400/2009 in OA No.2846/2009, the matter has been dealt with in accordance with law and the following information is passed on to the applicant:- 2. The point wise information sought by Shri LR Meena in his representation dated 24.9.09 and the reply thereof is tabled below:

(3.) THE stand put forth by the applicant before the tribunal was combated by the department contending, inter alia, that the amendment of the recruitment rules was underway and, therefore, the department and justified in withholding the result of the DPC. It was further set forth that the applicant had already been promoted to the grade of Scientist Eand assumed the charge of that post.