PRITPAL SINGH & ANOTHER Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners who figured as respondents No.6 and 9 respectively in the Original Application filed by Pawan Kumar Mattu before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'CAT'), Chandigarh Bench have prayed for a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.1.2005 and review order dated 7.9.2005 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench.

(2.) Pawan Kumar Mattu, respondent No.5 herein, sought for quashing the promotion granted in the guise of the review Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC'). He has also prayed for a direction to consider him for promotion by fresh DPC.

(3.) On 24.1.1992, a DPC was held and as a consequence, 13 persons were promoted to the post of Assistant Director. It is not in dispute that as per Rules, an Assistant with 8 years of regular service and an Office Superintendent with 5 years service are eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director. It is an admitted fact that none of the employees promoted to the post of Assistant Director as per DPC on 24.1.1992 was a party to the present case.