Dismissed¶11

University Grants Commission v. Sunita Chugh & Anr.

Delhi HC18 Mar 2025W.P.(C)/3287/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UGC v. Sunita Chugh; W.P.(C) 3287/2025; CM APPL. 15554-56/2025; High Court of Delhi; delay and laches; deferred DPC; Recruitment Rules amendment; MHRD e-mail 10.03.2017; DPC held 28.02.2018; superannuation 31.03.2017; notional promotion Deputy Secretary from 01.05.2015; right to be considered for promotion vs vested right; CAT Principal Bench O.A. 3705/2017; Tribunal order 03.01.2023; order dated 01.08.2017 set aside; eight weeks to comply.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner: the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was, however, granted eight weeks from the date of the judgment to comply with the Tribunal's Impugned Order (implementation of the DPC/notional-promotion directions). ¶11

University Grants Commission Vs Sunita Chugh & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, filed on 17.03.2025 more than two years after the Tribunal's order dated 03.01.2023, is liable to be dismissed on grounds of delay and laches. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The writ petition, filed on 17.03.2025 more than two years after the impugned Tribunal order, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone.

¶2

Ratio / Principle

The DPC held on 28.02.2018 was conducted under the same Rules that were to apply to the DPC proposed to be held on 14.03.2017.

¶9

Key takeaways

The delay in conduct of the DPC was neither for a reason attributable to respondent no.1 nor had it resulted in any change in her entitlement to claim promotion.ratio¶9
While an employee has no vested right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion, in the present case even that right of consideration was denied to respondent no.1.ratio¶9
The Court found no reason to entertain the petition, filed with delay and laches, and dismissed it.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Navin Chawla & Renu Bhatnagar, JJ.; oral judgment by Navin Chawla, J.), 18.03.2025: dismissed the University Grants Commission's W.P.(C) 3287/2025 challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) order dated 03.01.2023 in O.A. No. 3705/2017 (Sunita Kumari Chugh v. University Grants Commissions & Anr.), which had set aside the order dated 01.08.2017, directed convening of a DPC within three months, and granted notional promotion as Deputy Secretary from 01.05.2015 with consequential benefits. The petition, filed only on 17.03.2025 — over two years after the impugned order — was held liable to dismissal on delay and laches alone. The Court reasoned that the DPC eventually held on 28.02.2018 applied the same Rules meant for the DPC proposed on 14.03.2017, so the delay was neither attributable to respondent no.1 (who had superannuated on 31.03.2017) nor altered her entitlement; and although an employee has no vested right to promotion but only to be considered, even that right of consideration was denied to her. Eight weeks were allowed to the petitioner to comply with the Tribunal's order.

¶1

$~112

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 18.03.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 3287/2025 & CM APPL. 15554-56/2025 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr.Manoj Ranjan Sinha & Mr.Vishal Agrawal, Advs.

versus

SUNITA CHUGH & ANR.

.....Respondents

Through: Ms.Sriparna Chatterjee, Mr. Soumitra Chatterjee & Mr.Manish & Mr.Ashwin Romy, Advs. for R-1. Ms.Gauri Goburdhun, Panel Counsel with Mr.K.S. Jaggi, Adv. for R-2.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶12

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 3705/2017, titled Sunita Kumari Chugh v. University Grants Commissions & Anr. , allowing the said Original Application filed by the respondent herein with the following directions:-

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3287/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:2 2.03.2025 16:44:23

¶17

“9. As there is a merit on the side of the applicant, who has been discriminated by the respondents, we hereby set aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2017 and the respondents are directed to convene a DPC within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this Order. If the applicant is found otherwise eligible, he shall also be given notional promotion on the post Deputy Secretary with effect from 01.05.2015, the date when he became eligible to the said post. Any consequential benefits shall also be accorded to the applicant.”

¶18

At the outset we note that the present petition has been filed only on 17.03.2025, that is, after a period of more than two years of the passing of the Impugned Order. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on ground of delay and latches alone.

¶19

The respondent no.1 had filed the above Original Application before the learned Tribunal, contending therein that the respondent no.1 was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary in the petitioner in the DPC that was scheduled to be held on 14.03.2017, however, the said DPC was not held as the petitioner was considering amendment in the Recruitment Rules. The respondent prayed for a direction to the petitioner to immediately convene the DPC and to consider the respondent for promotion.

¶20

Eventually, the said DPC was held on 28.02.2018 with the unamended Recruitment Rules itself. In the meantime, the respondent no.1 had superannuated on 31.03.2017. 5. The learned Tribunal, taking into account that the case of the respondent no.1 had to be considered in the DPC to be held on 14.03.2017, allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3287/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:2 2.03.2025 16:44:23

¶24

no.1 and issued the above-mentioned direction to the petitioner. Aggrieved of the direction, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by an e- mail dated 10.03.2017, the Ministry of Human Resource Development had directed the petitioner not to convene the DPC and not to grant promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary till the required amendments in the existing Recruitment Rules were effected. It was only later that the permission to conduct the DPC was granted, pursuant to which the DPC was conducted, however, in the meantime, the respondent no.1 had superannuated. He submits that, therefore, the plea of discrimination against the respondent no.1 was not made out. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, who appears on advance notice of this petition, contends that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the case of promotion is to be considered in accordance with the Recruitment Rules that were existing on the date of the vacancies arising. She submits that merely because the petitioner delayed the conduct of the DPC, albeit at the direction of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the respondent no.1 cannot be denied his due right to promotion. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. 9. Admittedly, the DPC dated 28.02.2018 was conducted in accordance with the Rules that were to be applied by the DPC that was proposed to be held on 14.03.2017 as well. Therefore, the delay in conduct of the DPC was neither for a reason attributable to the respondent no. 1 nor had resulted in any change in the entitlement of

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3287/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:2 2.03.2025 16:44:23

¶28

the respondent no. 1 to the claim for promotion. While it is the settled position in law that an employee does not have vested right to promotion but only to be considered for promotion, in the present case, even this right was denied to the respondent no. 1.

¶29

We, therefore, find no reason to entertain the present petition, which, as noted hereinabove, has been filed with delay and latches. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

We, however, grant further time to the petitioner to comply with the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal. The same be complied within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶31

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶32

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶33

MARCH 18, 2025 /rv/IK

¶34

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Page 4 of 4

¶37

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3287/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:2 2.03.2025 16:44:23

University Grants Commission v. Sunita Chugh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

University Grants Commission v. Sunita Chugh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Vs Lieutenant Governor & Ors.

Babloo Vs Lieutenant Governor & Ors.

Staff Selection Commission and Ors. Vs Km Manju

Deepak Kapoor Vs North Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Mr. Jitmanyu Kohli Vs Jamia Millia Islamia and Anr.

Sevti Devi Memorial Vidya Mandir Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs

Ajay Kumar Malik through S.P.A. Holder Adarsh Malik Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

Staff Selection Commission and Ors. Vs Km Manju

Nttesh Arora Vs Isha Arora

Nishtha Jain Vs Arpit Goyal & Ors.

Dr Rajnikant Verma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner

Dr Rajeshwari Joshi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner

Union of India & Ors. Vs Maksood