ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. On 1.3.2018, advertisements were issued for calling for online applications to fill up among other posts, post of Associate Professor for the colleges run by the first appellant-corporation. In this case, we are concerned with the Dental College. However, on 21.3.2018, notice was issued to keep the recruitment process in abeyance in regard to the post of Associate Professor and Professor for administrative reasons, according to the appellant. Respondent No. 1 applied for the post of Associate Professor in Dentistry under the Scheduled Caste category at the ESIC Medical College, Bengaluru, by application dated 31.3.2018. Respondent No. 4 came to be promoted on 12.7.2018 to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 19.4.2017. The first respondent filed OA No. 298 of 2019 on 8.3.2019 seeking directions to fill up the post of Associate Professor in terms of advertisement dated 1.3.2018. After setting up the pleadings, the Central Administrative Tribunal passed an order in favour of the first respondent. The appellants challenged the said order before the High Court and the High Court dismissed the writ petition for the reasons as follows:

“2. The facts of the case reveal that respondent No. 1 Dr. Vinay Kumar who is working as Assistant Professor in the department of Dentistry came up before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming appointment to the post of Associate Professor. It was stated in the Original Application that the advertisement was issued by respondent Corporation – Annexure -A.8 dated 1.3.2018 inviting online application for the post of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor for its 8 PGIMSR/Medical/Dental Colleges. The post of Dentistry was reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidate.

6. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Medical Teaching Faculty Post) Recruitment Regulations, 2015 and his contention is that, as per the schedule appended to the Recruitment Rules, the Department can resort to direct recruitment only if the post cannot be filled up by promotion. The learned counsel for ESI Corporation has vehemently argued before this Court that Dr. Kamala has been promoted by order dated 12.3.2018 with effect from 19.4.2017, and therefore, no vacant post was available. The learned counsel has also categorically stated that promotion of Dr. Kamala was on account of Office Memorandum issued by Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, CHS Division, dated 29th October, 2008, thereby she was given promotion under the scheme of Extension of Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP). This Court has carefully gone through the DACP Scheme. Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Scheme reads as under:

“3. The above mentioned promotions under DACP Scheme will be made by this Ministry without linkage to vacancies. Other conditions for effecting promotions will be governed by the respective Recruitment Rules as amended from time to time and Department of Personnel and Training’s instructions in this regard.”

7. The aforesaid paragraph makes it clear that promotions under the DACP Scheme are made by the Ministry without linkage to the vacancies, meaning thereby she has been given promotion under the DACP Scheme and the post has to be treated as available, as the promotion of Dr. Kamala cannot be linked to the vacancy of Associate Professor.

8. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru. If there are no promotional candidate is available in the department, it has to be treated as vacant post and as it was reserved for Scheduled Caste category, it has to be filled up only to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. Resultantly, no case for interference is made out in the matter.”

Thereafter, the High Court directed the appellants to have the process concluded positively within a period of 45 day