ALOK SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In hand for disposal is Original Application No.3171/2010 filed by Dr. Alok Kumar Singh and three others, including Dr. Ashish Priyadarshi (3rd applicant), as also two misc. applications bearing MA Nos.2615/2011 and 2616/2011 in Transferred Application (TA) No.913/2009 seeking setting aside of order dated 12.10.2009 allowing the TA aforesaid, styling it as an ex parte order; and seeking condonation of delay in filing the said application. The two misc. applications referred to above have been filed only by Dr. Ashish Priyadarshi, the 3rd applicant arrayed in OA No.3171/2010, even though it is not in dispute that all the applicants were party respondents in TA No.913/2009.

(2.) This Tribunal disposed of TA No.913/2009 filed by Ranbir Singh, arrayed as 3rd respondent in the present OA, vide order dated 12.10.2009. Ranbir Singh had initially filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi, which came to be transferred to this Tribunal and was numbered as TA No.913/2009. He was at that time looking after the charge of Deputy Director and had sought consideration of his promotion as Assistant Director (Horticulture) with effect from 2002, and further consideration for promotion as Deputy Director on regular basis as per recruitment rules. It was his case that he had completed the required number of years in service for consideration for promotion on the post as mentioned above. The operative part of the order reads as follows: 4. In the light of above, we dispose of this TA with a direction to the respondents to hold a review DPC and consider the case of the applicant for promotion as Assistant Director w.e.f. 2002 and if he is found suitable on deemed eligibility be promoted on notional basis along with his juniors and colleagues w.e.f. 2002 and thereafter he shall also be considered on eligibility as per the recruitment rules for the post of Deputy Director. No costs. Pursuant to the orders as mentioned above, the respondents vide order dated 12.05.2010 promoted Ranbir Singh on the post of Assistant Director (Horticulture) in the pay scale of Rs.6500 -10500 (pre -revised) on regular basis with effect from 02.09.2002 retrospectively, i.e., with effect from the date of original DPC. Two others, namely Dev Chand Singh and Bhaginder Prasad also came to be appointed on the same post as Ranbir Singh, vide the same order. It is this order which has been challenged by the applicants in the present OA. It appears that since the applicants were respondents in TA No.913/2009, and would apprehend that unless the impugned order dated 12.05.2010 passed in consequence of the orders passed by this Tribunal in TA No.913/2009 is set aside, it may not be possible for them to obtain any relief in OA No.3171/2010, one of them, namely, Dr. Ashish Priyadarshi, has filed two misc. applications referred to above in TA No.913/2009. We may, however, mention that it is the case of the applicants as well that even if the order passed by this Tribunal in the TA aforesaid is not to be set aside, yet, inasmuch as the directions given by this Tribunal were to consider promotion of Ranbir Singh in accordance with the recruitment rules, and inasmuch as, Ranbir Singh would not be eligible under rules for promotion, they would succeed in any case, i.e., without even seeking setting aside of the order dated 12.10.2009 passed in the TA, and, therefore, the misc. applications referred to above, it appears, have been filed by way of abundant caution. Vide a detailed order dated 13.10.2011, the OA and the MAs were ordered to be listed together for disposal.

(3.) Before we may advert to the facts of the case, we may mention at the very outset that the applicants appear to be right in their approach that if the promotion of Ranbir Singh, the 3rd respondent arrayed in the OA, is against rules, and the direction given by this Tribunal in the TA aforesaid is that he be considered for promotion as per rules, it would not make any difference as to whether or not the order passed by this Tribunal in the TA is set aside. However, since the misc. applications have been hotly contested, it would be appropriate to give a decision thereon. We may, however, first advert to the facts of the case culminating into filing of the OA.