ANIL TYAGI Vs. M C D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only grievance of the petitioner is that for the last 11 years, no DPC has been held for the posts of Executive Engineer (Civil) despite the fact that the posts are lying vacant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the MCD, wherein, it is stated, that the name of the petitioner was considered along with others in the DPC, held in December 1996 but the said DPC did not recommend his name for regular promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil). Thereafter, further proposal was also forwarded to the UPSC for conducting the DPC but the same could not be finalized due to deficiency found in certain documents. It is further stated in the said paragraph that efforts are being made for convening the DPC.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in view of the above stand taken by the MCD, it is evident that the DPC could not be held by the UPSC because of the deficiencies in the documents pointed out by the UPSC. Learned counsel appearing for the UPSC states that the UPSC will have no objection in convening the DPC provided the MCD is able to make good the deficiencies in the documents as was pointed out to it.

(3.) In the above view of the matter, the MCD is directed to make good the deficiencies in the papers in all respects within a month from now and if everything is found to be in order, the UPSC shall convene the DPC within three months, thereafter. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.