UNION OF INDIA Vs. R K TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No.1, being grieved by the action of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), which considered 7 retired persons for promotion to the post of Assistant Director(Grade-I) as per the instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training(DOPT) for preparation of an extended panel for only three persons whereas it was incumbent on the DPC to prepare an extended panel of 4 retired persons as per the DOPT office memorandum No.22011/8/87 Estt.(D) dated 9.4.1996, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short, ,,the tribunal) in OA No.2156/2009 for issuance of direction to the respondents to convene a review DPC for the post of Assistant Director(Grade-I) and include his name in the extended panel. It was contended before the tribunal that 4 persons retired in the vacancy year 2004-05 out of which one D.R. Chakravarty retired on 31.3.2005 but the authorities did not count the said vacancy to have occurred in the vacancy year 2004-05 as a consequence of which serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.

(2.) THE undisputed fact is that the vacancy year is from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005. THE DPC met on 27.12.2005 to consider the promotion in respect of 17 posts (14 unreserved, 2 scheduled castes and 1 scheduled tribes category) in the grade of Assistant Director (Grade-I) in the Directorate General of Supply and Disposal. THE DPC recommended 15 names and in the extended panel kept 3 names. As on 27.12.2005, 7 officers had already retired and, therefore, it necessitated preparation of the extended panel, as per the DOPT office memorandum dated 9.4.1996. Relying on the said office memorandum, it was contended before the tribunal that the language employed in the said office memorandum stipulates that the extended panel is to be prepared keeping in view the vacancies arising in a particular vacancy year. As D.R. Chakravarty was retiring on 31.3.2005, his vacancy should have been treated to be vacancy for the vacancy year 2004- 05 not 2005-06.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Saquib, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Piyush Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, and Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent No.2.