AVANI CHAUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was appointed to the post of Data Processing Assistant (DPA) Grade 'A' on 1.02.1999 in the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). He was promoted to the post of DPA Grade 'B on regular basis with effect from 13.06.2005. The next promotional post in the hierarchy is Junior Staff Officer (JSO). The Recruitment Rules (RRs) for the post of JSO were initially framed in the year 1988 vide notification dated 16.12.1988. As per these RRs, Inspectors (re -designated as DPA -B) with five years regular service in the grade are eligible for promotion to the post of JSO. The applicant completed five years of regular service on 12.06.2010. A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting was held on 31.05.2013 for promotion to the post of JSO in NCRB. The applicant is aggrieved by the fact that his name is not included in the eligibility list for promotion in the DPC. He has pleaded that the DPC should consider the case of the eligible candidates as per old RRs of 1988 instead of new RRs notified on 15.02.2011 as the vacancies pertained to a period before the new rules came into existence. The applicant got left out because under the new rules, the candidates have to possess at least a Post Graduate diploma in a relevant discipline from a recognized University or Institute, viz. Post Graduate Degree in Computer Application (PGDCA) whereas old rules did not have this stipulation. The result is that some seniors who did not possess PGDCA got left out for inclusion, including the applicant, whereas their juniors in DPA -B cadre, who had acquired this qualification, became eligible.

(2.) THE applicant's argument is that he is the senior most ST candidate and has completed five years of service on 12.06.2010, therefore, he is eligible for promotion as per 1988 RRs, which were followed till 2011 RRs came into existence i.e. 15.02.2011. It has been stated that as per the final seniority list of DPA -B as on 21.11.2011, the applicant Shri Avani Chaudhary, is senior to Shri Rajendra Lakra, both Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates, but Shri Rajendra Lakra was considered by the DPC and not the applicant. As a result, his junior has superseded him due to this wrong application of rule by the respondents. It is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.V. Rangaiah and others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others, : (1983) 3 SCC 284 has laid down the law that vacancies falling under the currency of a particular RR are to be filled in terms of the provisions of the said RRs. It was further argued that in OA 3091/2010 decided by this Tribunal on 23.02.2012, the Tribunal has declared that even when the deemed abolished vacancies are revived, they are to be filled up as per year -wise select list made for the relevant years. This OA also related to NCRB and the applicants therein were Sub Inspectors (later re -designated as DPA Grade 'A) and their principal claim was with respect to retrospective regularization of their promotion to DPA Grade 'B with effect from the date they became eligible as the vacancies existed. The Tribunal held that the argument of the respondents that vacant posts were not available upto the date of holding regular DPC for promotion to DPA Grade 'B was not convincing and while allowing the OA, held as follows:

(3.) THE respondents stand is that in view of the notification dated 15.02.2011, the DPCs for the vacancy year 2010 -11 and 2011 -12 have been conducted as per the appropriate Rules, and year -wise panels have been prepared for the vacancy years 2010 -11 and 2011 -12 as per the DPC guidelines issued vide DOP&T O.M. dated 10.04.1989, and does not be required to be reviewed.