LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-176

MONIKA WADHWA Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Decided On August 14, 2019
Monika Wadhwa Appellant
V/S
HIGH COURT OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 24.02.2018 passed by the respondent whereby the petitioner's representation dated 08.02.2017 has been rejected. The order dated 24.02.2018 passed by the respondent, in so far as it is relevant, reads as follows:

(2.) The petitioner also seeks direction to the respondent to convene a review DPC for her promotion to the post of Private Secretary with effect from 12.09.2011, and to promote her to the said post with effect from 12.09.2011 i.e. the date on which the vacancy in the post of Private Secretary (to be filled from 25% promotion quota of Senior Personal Assistants) fell vacant.

(3.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Personal Assistant in this Court on 06.01.2000. She was appointed as a Senior Personal Assistant under the direct recruitment quota on 28.07.2006. On 07.01.2012, the respondent issued an order whereby the petitioner was confirmed in the post of Senior Personal Assistant with effect from 23.12.2011. The case of the petitioner is that a vacancy in the promotional post of Private Secretary under the 25% promotion quota arose on 12.09.2011. Even though the petitioner was confirmed in the post of Senior Personal Assistant with effect from 23.12.2011, she was eligible to be considered for the said post of Private Secretary from July 2011. However, she was not considered, as no DPC was convened to consider promotion to the post of Private Secretary. She was informed-in answer to her representation dated 07.03.2014, on 02.07.2014, that Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the recommendations of the Committee constituted for the purpose, had ordered that the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) 2836/2010, titled V.K. Mittal and Ors. vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court & Ors. be awaited, wherein erstwhile Rule 5A of the Delhi High Court Staff (Seniority) Rules, 1971 was under challenge for being declared void ab-initio. The further case of the petitioner is that though the promotions were not made to the post of Private Secretaries, promotions from the post of Private Secretary to the post of Assistant Registrar continued to be made which led to three more vacancies arising in the post of private Secretary.