Petitioners challenged promotion norms at Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology. The court held the 2007 Notification applying written test and interview requirements to Group B-D posts extended to Senior Mechanic/SSA posts, dismissing the petition.
Petition dismissed; petitioner eligible for benefits if selected in DPC held under new norms.
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.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 3rd May, 2011
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amiet Andlay, Adv. for R-2 to 6.
CORAM :-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Page 1 of 12
W.P.(C) 12650/2009
the post of Senior Scientific Assistant (SSA), filed this writ petition seeking directions for convening a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) after determining the year wise vacancies and further direction for considering them for promotion to the said post with effect from the date they became eligible therefor. The writ petition was accompanied with an application seeking interim relief of restraining the respondents from holding a DPC or from taking any steps for granting Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme benefits. Notice of the writ petition and the application for interim relief was issued. On 27th April, 2010, the counsel for the respondents informed that no date for DPC had been fixed and no DPC would be held till the next date. The said statement was continued further vide order dated 18th May, 2010. On 26th November, 2010, the petitioners No.1,3,4 & 5 stated that pursuant to certain steps taken by the respondent pendente lite , their grievance no longer survived and they withdrew from this writ petition. It was the contention of the counsel for the respondents on that date that the benefits owing whereto the other petitioners had withdrawn from the petition had been extended to the sole surviving petitioner No.2 Mr. Avaneesh Srivastava also and the writ W.P.(C) 12650/2009 Page 2 of 12
Page 2 of 12
petition did not survive qua him also. However, the counsel for the petitioner No.2 Mr. Avaneesh Srivastava (who was working as a Senior Mechanic) controverted. Vide order dated 9th March, 2011, the respondents
were permitted to proceed with the proposed DPC subject however to the condition that any decision taken therein with regard to the nine posts in question to be filled up by promotion was ordered to be subject to the outcome of this writ petition surviving qua petitioner No.2 Mr. Avaneesh Srivastava. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner No.2 to participate in the process as currently adopted by the respondents, without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the present writ petition.
Page 3 of 12
W.P.(C) 12650/2009
will appear in the selection process without prejudice to his rights and contentions was also recorded.
Page 4 of 12
W.P.(C) 12650/2009
“Dated: 12/12/07
NOTIFICATION
Sub: Approval for draft Recruitment Rules for Groups B, C & D posts in NSIT, vetted by Services Deptt., GNCTD.
A proposal on the above subject was placed before the Board in its meeting held on 12.9.2007 vide item No.5/32(ix). Board approved the proposal. The relevant minutes/resolution of the Board under reference is reproduced below for information / further necessary action by all the concerned:
“Resolved to approve the Norms for considering the eligible candidates for future promotion to all Groups B, C, & D posts as per Annexure-7(a) of agenda and draft Recruitment Rules for various Groups B, C, & D posts as per Annexure-7(b) of agenda.
Further resolved that BOG is the competent authority to approve or make any changes in the Recruitment Rules for all Groups A, B, C, & D posts in the Institute.”
No.5/32(ix) annexed to the aforesaid Notification dated 12th December, 2007:
Page 5 of 12
W.P.(C) 12650/2009
“The norms for considering the eligible candidates for promotion for Groups B, C & D posts is enclosed as Annexure-7(a). The revised RRs for the posts of Section Officer, Chief Store Keeper, Lab Technician (Pathology), Library Attendant, Nursing Orderly, Daftri & Binder are placed at Annexure-7(b) for approval of the Board.
Further, it may be mentioned here that, NSIT being an autonomous body, the Institute may create all the Group A, B, C & D posts with the concurrence of Finance Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. However, the framing of Recruitment Rules of such posts may be framed at Institute with the approval of BOG.
In view of the above the Board may consider and approve RRs for the above mentioned posts, norms for promotion to all Groups B,C & D posts and framing of Recruitment Rules for all the Groups A,B,C & D posts at Institute with the approval of Board”.
It is contended that though the same refers to the post of Section Officer, Chief Store Keeper, Lab Technician (Pathology), Library Attendant, Nursing Orderly, Daftri & Binder but does not mention the posts of Senior Mechanic or SSA. It is thus contended that the said Notification cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner.
Page 6 of 12
W.P.(C) 12650/2009
Group B, C & D posts. It is not disputed that the Senior Mechanic is a Group B post.
as Sr. Mechanic and without being required to take a written test, he would be eligible for promotion. It may be noticed that on the recommendation of the Committee constituted pursuant to Notification dated 18th June, 2009 (supra), the requirement of written test has been waived but the requirement of interview remains.
Page 8 of 12
W.P.(C) 12650/2009
promotion for all Group B,C & D posts (and which includes Sr. Mechanic/SSA) as per Annexure-7(a) stood changed to written test, interview etc., the Recruitment Rules were revised only for posts of Section Officer, Chief Store Keeper, Lab Technician (Pathology), Library Attendant, Nursing Orderly, Daftri & Binder. I have therefore no hesitation in holding that the norm for promotion qua petitioner stood amended on 12th December, 2007 and he was after the said Notification entitled to be considered for promotion not merely on the length of service but also on the basis of written test and interview.
Page 9 of 12
W.P.(C) 12650/2009
(c) “Final Seniority List” of Senior Mechanic “as on 10th October, 2006” containing the name of the petitioner Mr. Avaneesh Srivastava at serial No.7; it is contended that while the persons at serials No.1, 2 & 6 do not have the necessary eligibility for promotion to SSA, the person at serial No.3 has retired and thus the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the vacant posts.
Sreenivasa Rao AIR 1983 SC 852 to contend that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. He has thus alternatively contended that since even prior to the amendment on 12th December, 2007 there were vacancies to the promotional post of SSA, the said vacancies are to be filled up
Page 10 of 12
W.P.(C) 12650/2009
merely on the basis of seniority / length of service and for which the petitioner is eligible and without requiring the petitioner to take a written test or an interview.
Page 11 of 12
W.P.(C) 12650/2009
right to the vacancies even if any prior thereto and in particular prior to the amendment in the year 2007.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE)
MAY 03, 2011 „gsr‟ (Corrected and released on 12th May, 2011)
Page 12 of 12
W.P.(C) 12650/2009
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Notification dated 12th December, 2007 applying norms of written test and interview for promotion to Group B, C & D posts at NSIT applies to the post of Senior Mechanic/SSA.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion based solely on length of service ignoring the amended norms requiring written tests and interviews.
Whether vacancies existing prior to the amendment in 2007 should be filled based on the old seniority norms as per Y.V. Rangaiah.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. J. Sreenivasa RaoDistinguished¶13
Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao AIR 1983 SC 852 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BHAGAT SINGH & ORS.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
