DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dtd. 29/7/2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Original Application (O.A.) No. 1271/2021. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.A. preferred by the respondent and has consequently, directed the petitioner to extend the benefits of promotion to the respondent at par with his junior by treating him as having been qualified the examination for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Ministerial) held in 2005 and notionally fix his last drawn pay so that his pension can be suitably revised and grant him arrears of revised pension accordingly.

(2.) In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal has, without any basis, interfered with the administrative decision taken by the petitioner to not grant any benefit to the respondent of passing the departmental examination conducted in 2005 for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Ministerial) after such an inordinate delay. She contends that even though the respondent has been declared as having passed the said examination, the same was only after the third re-evaluation of his language paper conducted on 11/10/2013. However, once it was realised that there were basic infirmities in the examination process itself, the petitioner was justified in not granting any benefit to the respondent of having qualified the said examination, which aspect the learned Tribunal had failed to appreciate. She, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Tribunal, after consideration of the entire material brought on record by the parties, has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the respondent has been discriminated against as he was denied the benefit of his promotion despite his having cleared the departmental exam held in 2005. Furthermore, when all other employees who had qualified the said examination, which the petitioner now claims was riddled with infirmities, were granted promotion based on the result of the very same examination, the respondent could not be discriminated against and denied his due promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Ministerial) from 2006, when all other candidates who had qualified the said examination were promoted. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.