DEEPAK BANSAL Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 203 -CH of 2002 on 7.8.2002 (Annexure P -16) to the writ petition and the order dated 11.10.1999 whereby respondent No.7 was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer w.e.f. 5.8.1996. The petitioner also seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) w.e.f. January/April, 1997.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on the post Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Engineering Department of Chandigarh in the pay scale of Rs. 2000 -60 -2300/75 -3200 -100 -3500 by order dated 26.2.1991. This appointment of the petitioner was consequent upon his selection by the Union Public Service Commission in the quota of direct recruits. He joined the department on 15.3.1991. Further promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) is to that of Assistant Executive Engineer: (Electrical). Service conditions of the Engineers of the Electrical Department of Chandigarh are governed by the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Electrical) (Chandigarh Amendment) Regulations, 1985. These regulations came into force w.e.f. 16.10.1982. A seniority list of the Assistant Engineers Class II working in the electricity wing of the Engineering Department, Chandigarh Administration as it existed as on 31.1.1985, was duly circulated (Annexure P -4). In the aforesaid seniority list, name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 6. His date of appointment is shown as 15.3.1981. Respondent No. 7 is shown at Sr. No. 8 of the seniority list and his date of appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer is indicated as 8.12.1992. This order furthers shows that employees mentioned at Sr. Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were appointed against the quota of direct recruits, whereas employees from Sr. Nos. 7 to 11 have been promoted from the posts of Junior Engineers. Employees mentioned at Sr. Nos.4 and 5 were further promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (hereinafter referred to as AEE) in August, 1996. Three vacancies of AEE (Electrical) were available. The petitioner was not promoted as he did not qualify the departmental examination. He qualified the aforesaid examination held in December, 1996, the result of which was declared in January, 1997. The petitioner, therefore, claims that he was fully eligible to be considered for further promotion to the post Of AEE (Electrical) in January, 1997. At that stage, respondent No.7 filed OA No.889 CH/1996 seeking a direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of AEE by counting his ad hoc service towards qualifying service. The OA was allowed. The respondents were directed to count the ad hoc service of respondent No.7 as Assistant Engineer as qualifying service for promotion to the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer. The respondents were directed to hold a review DPC as on 5.8.1996. The petitioner had moved an application for being impleaded as a party in the aforesaid OA, but the same was rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 4.4.1997. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order as well as the final order dated 28.8.1997 in C.W.P. No. 1318 of 1997. The aforesaid writ petition was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on. 17.3.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there is no objection to the finding and the direction given by the Tribunal that respondent no.7 was entitled to count his ad hoc service towards experience for the purpose of being considered for promotion. The grievance was, however, made that the posts against which the Tribunal had directed the name of respondent No.7 to be considered, does not fall in the quota for promotees, and therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in directing the name of respondent No.7 be considered for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer w.e.f. 5.8.1999 when the earlier DPC had met. The writ petition was disposed of without going into the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal. It was also observed that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the promotion of respondent No.7 in case he is promoted on all possible legal grounds, including the ground that the post on which the respondent No.7, if promoted, was not meant for the promotee quota. In compliance of the judgment dated 28.8.1997 of the Tribunal, respondent No.7 was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer w.e.f. 5.1.1996 i.e. from the date M.P. Singh Wassal and Subhash Chander Saini were promoted.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner also filed OA No.564 CH of 1999 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider him for promotion against one of the two vacant posts of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) by holding a D.P.C. He also claimed a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of promotion from the date of passing of Departmental Accounts Examination. The OA came up for hearing on 8.6.1999. In the aforesaid OA, the following order was passed: -