SAHADEVA SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.01.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby Original Application No. 2125/2005, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. The facts relevant for this petition can be summarized as follows: - The petitioner before this Court was promoted as Assistant Commissioner (Crops) w.e.f. 29.06.1999. The next higher post, to which the petitioner could be considered for promotion, was of Deputy Commissioner (Crops). The Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Commissioner (Crops) provided that an Assistant Commissioner (Crops) with five years regular service in the grade and possessing Degree in Agriculture and Postgraduate Degree in Agriculture with specialization in Agronomy/Plant Breeding and Genetics from a recognized university or equivalent, could be promoted to the grade of Deputy Commissioner (Crops). Two posts of Deputy Commissioner (Crops) fell vacant in the year 2004, one on 15.05.2004 and the other on 04.04.2004. As per instructions, issued by DoP&T, the first day of the year in which the vacancy arose was to be taken as the date for determining the eligibility of the officers working in the feeder cadre. The petitioner, therefore, was not eligible for being considered for promotion against the aforesaid two posts prior to 28.06.2004. Since no other person working in the feeder cadre was eligible to be considered for promotion in the year 2004, the vacancies which arose in that year were carried forward to the year 2005. The petitioner became eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (Crops) in the vacancy year 2005, relevant date for reckoning eligibility being 01.01.2005, and he having completed 5 years service in the grade of Assistant Commissioner on 28.06.2004. OA No. 2125/2005 was filed by the petitioner seeking promotion w.e.f. 28.06.2004. No Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held in the year 2005. The DPC was held in the year 2006 during the pendency of OA and the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Commissioner (Crops) w.e.f. 04.10.2006. In view of the promotion of the petitioner w.e.f. 04.10.2006, the Tribunal dismissed the said OA and his prayer for promotion w.e.f. 26.06.2004 was declined on the ground that though an employee has a right to be considered for promotion, he has no right to demand the promotion.

(2.) IT is an admitted position that two vacancies in the cadre of Deputy Commissioner (Crops) arose in the year 2004, one on 15.05.2004 and the other on 04.04.2004. It is also not in dispute that since the Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Commissioner (Crops) did not prescribe the day, crucial for determining the eligibility for promotion, OM No. 22011/9/98 -Estt. (D) dated 08.09.1998 read with OM of even number dated 13.10.1998 became applicable, which prescribed the 1st January of the year in which the vacancies arose as the relevant date for determining seniority for the Recruitment Year 2005. It is also an admitted fact that no person working in the feeder cadre was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner in the year 2004 as the petitioner did not have the prescribed service, whereas the only other Assistant Commissioner did not have the prescribed educational qualification. It is also an admitted position that the Recruitment Rules do not prescribe any date for the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee to make recommendations for promotion to the aforesaid posts.

(3.) VIDE DoPT OM No. 22011/9/98 -Estt.(D) dated 14.12.2000, Department of Personnel and Training emphasized that the time -frame stipulated in the Model Calendar needs to be strictly adhered to and in case of the prescribed time -frame not being maintained, steps should be taken to fix responsibility for the lapse. The aforesaid OM reads as under: -