SURESH GUPTA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Original Application has been filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the action of the respondents in not giving the applicant the benefit of promotion to Junior Administrative Grade -I (JAG -I) of DANICS from due date of vacancy year 2009, instead giving the same w.e.f. 01.07.2011 vide the Notification dated 17.04.2012 (Annexure A-9). The applicant is further aggrieved by rejection of his representation dated 07.11.2012 vide impugned order dated 28.12.2012 of the respondents. The applicant has sought the following reliefs :-

(2.) THE facts of the case, very briefly stated, are that the applicant is a DANICS [Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Lakshadweep Civil Services] officer recruited on the basis of Civil Services Examination, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as 'CSE -1986'] but allocated to 1988 batch. He The applicant was confirmed in the Service w.e.f. 02.05.1990 vide Notification dated 21.03.1995. He was appointed to Selection Grade on ad hoc basis vide order dated 02.04.1997 and was regularized w.e.f. 02.05.1996 vide notification dated 30.06.1998. He was promoted to JAG -II of the Service on ad hoc basis on 18.10.2002 and regularized as such vide notification dated 21.2.2003. On 6.8.2003, the then DANICS Civil Service Rules, 1996 were substituted by the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep , Daman & Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli Civil Service Rules, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 2003']. The Rules 2003 were further partially amended vide notification dated 1.10.2009 whereby sanctioned strength of the Service was increased to 472 by carrying out amendment to Schedule -1 of the Rules of 2003. The applicant was appointed to JAG -I of the Service on ad hoc basis vide order dated 27.12.2011 (page 77 Annexure A/8 of the paper book) and was subsequently regularized vide notification dated 17.4.2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2011 (page 81, A -9 Entry 66 of the paper book).

(3.) THE applicant has taken several grounds in support of the OA. In the first place, applicant contends that his appointment to JAG -I was delayed due to inability of the respondents in holding DPC as per the directives of the DOPT vide OM dated 14.12.2010, for which the applicant cannot be penalized. Secondly, it is averred that since induction into IAS and promotion to JAG -I are interrelated, the respondents have clearly erred in clubbing all the vacancies of JAG -I, while induction into IAS is being made on the basis of the vacancies arising every year. In the third place, while the officers, who were inducted/appointed, are assigned seniority ranging from 6 to 8 years earlier to being inducted into select list, it is just and proper that the JAG -II officers should also be adjusted against the vacancies arising consequence upon JAG -I officers getting inducted into IAS. As such, the applicant is entitled to be promoted to JAG -I against consequential vacancies arising from appointment of 7 JAG -I DANICS Officers (SI. Nos. 2 to 8 of the select list of 2009) vide notification dated 24.11.2011.