High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an officer against Central Administrative Tribunal's judgment regarding promotion orders and seniority lists, holding the Tribunal's directions lawful and the petition lacking merit.
The writ petition was dismissed; the rule was discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
Writ Petition No.1605 of 1999
C.G.Tewari Vs.
Union of India & ors.
Petitioner
Respondents
CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & NARESH H.PATIL,JJ.
October 09, 2006.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)
dated 19/8/1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing partly the Original Application Nos.652, 653 and 654 of 1997, this petition has been filed by the original respondent no.9. The petitioner, before he approached this Court, had filed review applications which also came to be rejected summarily by the Central Administrative
Tribunal on 9/10/1998. The directions given by the
CAT in the impugned common judgment read as under:
"(i) Respondents are directed to hold
Review D.P.C. for the vacancies of the year
1991-92 by taking into consideration the zone
of consideration by considering all the 130
officers who were in service at that time
2
including the officers who have subsequently retired prior to D.P.C. meeting, by excluding the names of Respondents 3 to 18 from the zone of consideration for that year and then after making the necessary gradings on the basis of records, the Review D.P.C. shall select the names of officers who are to be promoted for the vacancies of 1991-92.
(ii) If, however, on the basis of the
grading the applicants do not get promotion for the vacancies of 1991-92 then the applicants should be considered for promotion in the vacancies for the subsequent years. For every such Review D.P.C. the names of such eligible officers shall be selected for the zone of consideration only from the officers who were in service for the relevant vacancy year including those officers who have subsequently retired and then on the basis of grading select the officers for promotion.
(iii) Similarly Respondents 3 to 18 be
considered by the Review D.P.C. for the
vacancies of 1992-93 or 1993-94 depending upon
3
their coming within the zone of consideration
and depending upon the number of vacancies and
the grading, they may be promoted.
(iv) After the exercise of review D.P.C.
are over as mentioned above and formal promotion orders are issued for the vacancies of the relevant years, then a seniority list should be prepared of all the promoted officers. The officers promoted in the earlier years will certainly rank senior to the officers who are promoted in the subsequent years. As far as officers promoted in one year their rank position should be arranged as per their grading given by the D.P.C.
(v) We make it clear that none of the
applicants or Respondents 3 to 18 or any other promoted officer should not be demoted by virtue of this exercise of Review D.P.C. If by chance by virtue of Review D.P.C. some officers who are yet to be promoted become entitled to be promoted then they can be promoted in the future vacancies, but of
4
course giving them seniority as per D.P.C.
grading and year of vacancy.
(vi) For the purpose of further promotions,
till such seniority list is prepared after
holding review D.P.C. as mentioned in this order, the official respondents can take up promotion to senior administrative grade on the basis of existing seniority list and in case any of the Respondent No.3 to 18 gets selected in the next promotion, the same may be made purely on ad hoc basis to be subject to the final seniority list to be prepared as per the direction in this order and ad hoc promotion to be reviewed after finalising the said seniority list. In the order of promotion itself it should be mentioned that in case any of the respondents Nos.3 to 18 are selected, their promotion would be ad hoc and will be reviewed after the seniority list is
finalised as per the judgment.
(vii) We hereby direct
the official
respondents to complete the exercise of review D.P.Cs. and issuing fresh order of promotion
5
and preparation of fresh seniority list on
that basis as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
6
| all the |
parties | that | the | respond | ent | nos.3 | to | 18 | could |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| not have |
come | withi | n the |
zone | of |
con | sideration | if | the |
| choice | was | limited | to | 130 | officers | to | fill | in | 63 |
| vacancies | for | the | year 1 |
991-92. | Hence | the | T | ribunal | |
| directed | to | hold | review | D.P.C | . | for | consid | eration | of |
promotion for the year 1991 to fill in 63 vacancies
from amongst 130 officers on the basis of seniority.
7
sought to reopen the promotions granted in the year 1989-90 and 1990-91 by his review petition before the Tribunal which was not the subject matter in the original applications already decided by the impugned common judgment. The Tribunal, therefore, rejected the said application.
| 4. | In this petition again | the petitioner | prays | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| for | the review of |
the DPC |
for | the years |
1989-90, | |
| 1990-91 | and 1991-92. |
When | the | issue of rev |
iew | for |
| the | DPC for the years |
1989-90 | and | 1990-91 was |
not | a |
| subject | matter covered |
by t |
he | Original | Ap | plications |
| decided | by the Tribu |
nal by |
t | he impugned |
common | |
| judgment, | the said issue |
cannot |
be | decided by |
us | in |
| this | petition now and |
so far |
as | the issue |
regarding | |
| the |
DPC for the |
year 199 |
1-92 | is concer |
ned, | the |
| officers | upto sr.no.318 |
in | the | seniority | list | at |
| Exhibit | "K" could |
be consi |
dered | for 63 |
vacancies | |
| [2x63+4] | and, therefo |
re, the |
Trib | unal has |
rightly | |
| considered | all the |
relevant | issues and |
given |
directions to call for a review DPC for the year 1991-92.
8
apparent on the face of record and hence this
petition must fail. The same is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged with no order costs.
(NARESH H. PATIL,J) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the writ petition seeking review of promotion orders violates any statutory provision or established legal principles.
Whether the Supreme Court judgment noted per the High Court mandates a fresh review for the years 1989-90 and 1990-91.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N.S.K. Nayar & ors. v. Union of India & ors.Followed¶3
N.S.K. Nayar & ors. v. Union of India & ors. [1992 Supp (2) SCC 508] · Who else cites this
C.G.Tewari
Union of India
B.H.Marlapalle
Naresh H.Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
