RAM NIWAS Vs. INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the instant OA is to the orders dated 12.1.2012 and 13.2.2013 (Annexures A -15 & A -17) whereby the representation of the applicant for grant of promotion from the date when the vacancy had occurred has been rejected.

(2.) THE facts which led to filing of the present Original Application are that the applicant initially joined the respondent department as Lower Division Clerk on 9.8.1985. Thereafter, he was promoted as UDC and then Assistant on 14.11.1995. The next promotion is to the post Assistant Administrative Officer, which is to be filled up by two modes i.e. one under the promotion quota and the other by the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short 'LDCE'). The persons having eight years regular service as Assistant and five years regular service as Assistant who have cleared the departmental examination are eligible to be considered for promotion. The respondent department invited applications for filling up the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (for short 'AAO') under LDCE quota for which the test was conducted in the year 2002. Thereafter, the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 29.8.2002 which prepared the panel of two persons and recommended Shri S.C. Tuli and the present applicant for promotion. Shri Tuli was promoted as AAO on 2.12.2002. It is the case of the applicant that thereafter another post of AAO became available in January, 2003 due to demise of Shri Rameshwar Dass under the LDCE quota. The applicant submitted a representation on 15.9.2003 by stating therein that since a vacancy arose within the life span of the panel prepared by the DPC, wherein the name of the applicant was at sr. No. 2, he may be promoted against the same. However, his request was turned down vide letter dated 10.11.2003. Thereafter, the respondents vide circular dated 11.11.2003 again invited applications for filling up two posts of AAO. The applicant submitted a representation dated 21.11.2003 for giving him the post of AAO by placing reliance on instructions dated 31.7.1989 issued by the ICAR. After a protracted correspondence, the applicant was promoted as AAO vide order dated 13.1.2006 against the post falling vacant on 20.1.2003 on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC held on 29.8.2002. It is thereafter, that, the applicant submitted numerous representations to the respondent department to grant him promotion from the date when the vacancy became available. However, by the impugned orders dated 12.1.2012 and 13.2.2013, his request has been turned down. Hence the present Original Application.

(3.) THE applicant has filed a rejoinder wherein apart from contradicting the averments made in the written statement, he has enclosed the information received under R.T.I. Act, 2005 to the effect that the respondents kept on extending the benefit in terms of 1989 instructions but the same has been denied to the applicant. Therefore, the respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.