VIJAI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA SON OF LATE SHANKAR SAHAY SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.1.2000, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 530 of 1993 (V.S. Srivastava V/s. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application preferred by the present petitioner for the following reliefs has been rejected:

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner served the All India Radio on a junior position from 1975 to 31.7.1988, and not of any relevance in the present context. In view of the selection process conducted by the Union Public Service Commission, he was directly appointed as Station Director (OG) on probation on 1.8.1988. He successfully completed the probation period on 31.7.1989, vide order dated 3.1.1990 (Annexure-2). The issues relating to the terms and conditions of service of the category of the petitioner was earlier governed by All India Radio (Group-A) Recruitment Rules, 1963, and was in force up to 4.11.1990. The same has been replaced by Indian Broadcasting Programme Service Rules, 1990, w.e.f. 5.11.1990. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) did not meet during the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. It met in the year 1993, and considered all the eligible candidates including the petitioner as per the eligibility criteria under 1990 Rules. In view of the provision of law that an employee of the category of the petitioner, namely, a direct recruit, would become eligible for consideration for the selection grade in question after completing five years commencing from 1.8.1988. In other words, he could not be considered for the selection grade till 31.7.1993, because he entered the zone of consideration on 1.8.1888. The DPC met in 1993, and considered the cases of petitioner, and other persons who were promotees. The petitioner was not found fit, and was denied the benefit of selection grade. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring the aforesaid O.A. No. 530 of 1993, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the DPC had to meet at an interval of one year. The list had to be prepared year-wise even if DPC was convened after a lapse of a few years, which has not been done in the present case, and instead a combined list for a number of years has been prepared, which is impermissible in law. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar V/s. Union of India, 1999 3 PLJR 255. One of us (S.K. Katriar, J.) had the occasion to apply the same in the case of Sunil Kumar Sinha V/s. State of Bihar, 2009 1 PLJR 744. He further submits that the vacancies which had occurred till November 1990 had to be considered as per the procedure prescribed under the old Rules.