RAKESH MOHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second round of litigation for the same relief. Earlier in point of time, the applicant, a 1978 -batch IAS officer, at that time working as Principal Secretary (Education), Government of NCT of Delhi, took exception to his being overlooked in the matter of promotion to the grade and scale of Secretary in preference to one of his juniors. He sought quashing or order dated 13.04.2011, whereby he was denied promotion, and in consequence thereof, to issue direction to the respondents to consider him for promotion to the cadre and scale of Secretary with effect from the date his junior was promoted. All aspects of the case in all their minute details have been threadbare referred to, discussed and adjudicated upon. There would be no need to reiterate the same in this order. This order be read in continuation of our judgment recorded in the earlier Original Application of the applicant bearing OA No.3379 of 2011 decided on 15.11.2011. We may, however, reiterate that there is no dispute on facts that the meeting of the screening committee was held on 30.03.2011 to consider promotion of officers of AGMUT cadre belonging to 1978 and 1979 batches. Promotion orders of others, consequent upon recommendations of the screening committee, came to be issued on 13.04.2011. There were four vacancies, three of which belonged to 1978 batch, whereas one belonged to 1979 batch, against which one Shri Shakti Sinha was promoted, who was admittedly junior to the applicant. Further, order sanctioning prosecution of the applicant was issued on 29.08.2011, and the report under Section 173 Cr.PC was filed in the concerned criminal court on 24.09.2011. The facts leading to registration of the criminal case against the applicant, have already been given in our order dated 15.11.2011. It was an admitted position and the records summoned by us, as mentioned in para 6 of the judgment, had also revealed that while considering the case of the applicant with 1978 batch officers, the matter was deferred for seeking clarification from DOP&T. The committee did not even consider as to whether the applicant was fit or unfit for promotion, nor was his case put in a sealed cover. It further revealed from the records that the MHA had sought opinion of DOP&T on the issue, which, in turn, mentioned that sealed cover procedure in case of the applicant could not be adopted. We had reproduced note dated 07.06.2011 prepared by Under Secretary (AVD.I) in paragraph 6 of our judgment. On the facts as mentioned above, we held as follows: We need not comment upon the issue aforesaid at this stage. The Original Application came to be filed when the applicant, as per the case set up by him, had wrongly been not considered for promotion and his case was simply deferred to seek opinion, and even when the said opinion came in favour of the applicant, he was not promoted.

(2.) Notice in this case was issued on 03.02.2012 for 13.02.2012. The order on the adjourned date, i.e., 13.02.2012, would show that even though service was complete, but no one had chosen to appear on behalf of the respondents. Shri R. N. Singh, who is on the panel of the Union of India, and was present in the Court, was asked to take instructions in the matter and file reply within three days. When the matter came up before us for hearing on 17.02.2012, we passed the following order: Order dated 13.02.2012 reads as follows: -

(3.) Before we may part with this order, we may mention that there is absolutely no dispute on facts, except a wrong affidavit that came to be filed on behalf of the respondents, which required clarification. Learned counsel representing the respondents on both occasions when the arguments were heard, wanted adjournment by stating that in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal, it may be possible that the respondents might have considered the case of the applicant, and some order may have been passed in his case as well, and, therefore, the matter be adjourned. We found no justification for adjourning the matter on ground as mentioned above. It was a pure and simple case of interpretation of para 7 of OM dated 14.09.1992 and its applicability in the facts of the present case, and nothing more and nothing less. We may, however, mention that it is the positive case of the applicant, so specifically pleaded in the OA, that before putting his case in sealed cover, he was not heard in the matter. Further, if there was any order, learned counsel could certainly get instructions in that regard and produce the same before us, but he would only state that he had instructions to take adjournment, which could not be appreciated.