LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-139

JAI PRAKASH Vs. UOI

Decided On August 22, 2013
JAI PRAKASH Appellant
V/S
UOI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAI Prakash, the petitioner, challenges the judgment and order dated September 11, 2001 dismissing OA No.64/2001 filed by him. His claim in the Original Application was to be treated at par with one Sh.R.C.Gupta and Sh.B.N.Laha and thus be granted promotion as on September 04, 1995 with all consequential benefits to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil). He also prayed that the seniority list of Superintending Engineers circulated on September 25, 1998 be modified accordingly.

(2.) THE factual backdrop in which claim of Jai Prakash needed to be considered, and as a matter of fact was considered by the Tribunal, was that a DPC was convened in October, 1994 to empanel eligible Executive Engineers (Civil) to be promoted as Superintending Engineers for the vacancy years 1992-93 and 1993-94. The proceedings of the DPC were concluded on October 10, 1994 and for reason unknown the DPC not only prepared a select panel of 20 officers against the vacancies of the year 1992-93 and a select panel of 19 officers for the vacancies of the year 1993-94 but additionally 33 more officers; and it appears that these were for vacancies beyond the two vacancy years i.e. 1992-93 and 1993- 94.

(3.) ONE Sh.Surender Kumar was aggrieved by the DPC drawing up a select panel of 33 officers, which obviously was in excess of the 20 and the 19 vacancies notified to the DPC for being filled up and for which only two select panels had to be prepared. He questioned the select panel of the 33 officers and we find that that rather than segregating the empanelment of 20 and 19 officers for the notified vacancy years 1992- 93 and 1993-94, the Tribunal disposed of OA No.1865/1995 filed by Surender Kumar with a direction that review DPC be held for all vacancies by considering the vacancies year wise and thereby restricting the number of eligible candidates as per the zone of consideration envisaged by the Rules. Allowing OA No.1865/1995 vide order dated August 01, 1996 the Tribunal issued five directions which read as under:-