The Full Bench disposed of a writ petition without commenting on the controversy, noting that the Division Bench had already given a final opinion on promotion eligibility and that the matter was to be dealt with by the Division Bench as the petitioner's counsel had submitted.
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.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA
questions.
following order:
"3. Even though the.matter has been referred to the larger Bench, but we findthat the learned Division Bench hasexpressed final opinion on the controversy. Wemay make a mention of some of thepertinent findings of the learned DivisionBench, thus:
t
i
"29. lt is thus clear that resolution dated 31.10.2007 could not have been given effect to unless it was approved by the Central Governmentand published in the Gazette.
9
('
"34. Seen from any angleas discussed above, wecan come to onlY one conclusion that theregular promotion granted to respondentNos- 3 and 4 as DEO(PhYsical)is "not sustainable in law.The sameis accordinglyquashed and set aside."
.Thefindings as reproducedabovehave been given afterreproducingthe relevant rules and the resolutiondated 31.1-1997- As regards other defencesprojected by the respondents also,final opinion has been expressed.
\4
I
A
answering by theFull Bench.Even though, a final decisionhas been taken,and so much so,promotion of the 3'd respondent' has beenquashed, the matter has yet been referred to thelarger Bench for the only reason that aco-ordinateBench of this Tribunal in TA Nos.11512009and 11612009 vide order dated6.5.2009 had given directions to theMCD to hold review DPC and to consider theapplicantsthereinfor promotion to thepost ofDEO(Physical), whereas the DivisionBenchin the present case has taken theview that the existing post being that of onlyDEO, AEO (Physic-a! cannot be consideredfor promotionas DEO unless the recruitmentrules are amendedor new recruitmentrltles are notified for the post of DEO (Physical).ltis further mentioned thatthere would be an inherent contradictionin the views taken in both the judgments, and, therefore,keeping in view ihe-mandateof the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofSl Rooplal,.itwould be proper that the matter beplaced beforethe Chairman on administrativeside for referring the case to theFull Bench. The judgment recorded by thisTribunal in the two Transferred Applicationsreferred to above, does not touchupon even remotelythe issue as raised in thepresent Application' lt was an inter se disputebetweenDEO (Physical) and the existenceor applicability of the resolution of1997 was not in dispute' No doubt, the directionsthat have been issued in the two TAsas mentioned above and that would have beenissued by the Division Bench in thepresentcase, would not be in tune with eachother, and there would indeed be somecontradiction."
5
\ \ \
apprised at the Bar that the matter is placed before the Division Bench.
'vA
l
Copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for
the parties under signature of the Court Master.
2t '>'r4 CHIEF JUSTICE q -,/ (rt (.{( SANJIV KHANNA, J.
AUGUST 02,2011^/KR
-/
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sl. RooplalReferred¶19
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Petitioners
Respondents
Division Bench
Sanjiv Khanna
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
