“11. Pursuant to the above, the 2nd respondent undertook further processing and pending notification of RR convened the DPC on 10.06.2005 and granted regular promotion to the applicants in the DPA Grade B with effect from 13.06.2005. Our careful scrutiny of the pleadings manifest that the respondents are responsible for not granting regular promotion. Non-availability of vacancy was problem initially but once some posts were revived and Model RR of 1998 was available with the respondents, even if the DPC met in the year 2005 and RR was notified in the year 2010, the respondents were duty bound to draw up annual promotion panel for regular promotion to the post of DPA Grade-B. However, the applicants may have fulfilled 4 years of regular service on the dates from which they are claiming regular promotion to DPA Grade B, but there are many other factors which are to be examined by the respondents even to consider their claim. Those factors are vacancy position year wise, seniority list of DPA Grade-A officers and eligibility of the applicants in all aspects including educational qualification. It is trite law that the DPC must meet for every vacancy year to prepare a Panel for promotion. In the present case, the above position would be fully applicable. For the above reasons, we direct the 2nd respondent to examine the case of the applicants along with other eligible officers of DPA Grade-A for each vacancy year for the post of DPA Grade-B w.e.f. 1995 and if the applicants are found fit for any earlier year prior to 2005 (the year of their regular promotion), they shall be granted promotion to DPA Grade-B on notional- basis. As three of the applicants have been promoted on ad hoc basis on 6.03.2000, and 19.06.1998 they shall be granted actual pay benefits from their respective date of ad hoc promotion.”
