DALBIR SINGH Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has checkered history inasmuch as there have been various litigations between the parties. The petitioner herein had filed OA No.1972/1996 wherein he had questioned the seniority position assigned to him vis -à -vis other officials in the grade of Rs.1640 -2900/ -. In this petition, he had claimed seniority over respondent No.5 but the respondent No.4 was not the party to those proceedings implying that the respondent No.5 has accepted the seniority above respondent No.4. In this OA, orders dated 27.11.1996 was passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Tribunal) promoting the official respondents to make promotions subject to the outcome of the said OA. Thereafter, the Department issued Office Order dated 06.5.1997 and promoted respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the post of Seed Analyst and Agronomist (IADP) respectively. Challenging this order, the petitioner filed OA No.1276/1997 (present writ petition arises out of these proceedings).

(2.) WHILE OA No.1276/1997 was still pending, OA No.1272/1996 came up for hearing before the Tribunal and vide order dated 08.3.2000, the Tribunal allowed the OA in favour of the petitioner directing the respondent Department to reassign the seniority position in the seniority list of the officials in the grade of Rs.1640 -2900/ - after taking into consideration the ad Hon'ble Court officiation period of the petitioner on the post of Sr. Demonstrator. While complying with the directions of the learned Tribunal and giving benefit to the petitioner the Department also extended the similar benefit to the respondent No.5 again showing him senior to the petitioner vide re -drawn seniority list dated 25.8.2000, which was made the subject matter of challenge in OA No.1864/2001. The Tribunal dismissed OA No.1864/2001 on merits vide order dated 25.9.2002 and the same was assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No.3599/2003. This Court vide order dated 20.12.2007 set aside the order of the Tribunal and the respondent Department complied with the same by issuing the seniority list dated 08.6.2009 by which the petitioner became senior to the respondent No.5 having been assigned seniority position at Sl. No.2 over and above the respondent No.5 who has been assigned seniority position at Sl. No.3. The new seniority list has not been challenged by either of the parties and has thus attained finality.

(3.) INSOFAR as OA No.1276/1997 is concerned, it came up for hearing before the Tribunal and has been decided on merits vide order dated 04.1.2001. The Tribunal has dismissed the said OA whereby the petitioner has questioned the promotion of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and claimed that he be promoted. The main reason given by the Tribunal is that the petitioner who was working as Demonstrator was not even eligible for appointment as Seed Analyst and/or Agronomist. It is held that neither in the Recruitment Rules, 1984 nor in the Amended Recruitment Rules, 1997, the post of Senior Demonstrator (which was held by the petitioner) was in the feeder cadre for promotion and therefore, the petitioner did not acquire any legally enforceable challenge to the right of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 to the said post. We may point out here that conscious of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner has also questioned the validity of the aforesaid Rules submitting that there was inconsistency between the provisions of the Amended Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and Rule 20 of the Seed Rules framed under the Seed Act, 1966. The Tribunal repelled this contention also finding no such inconsistency.