The petitioner was wrongly promoted to the post of SREO under the 1965 Rules, which were not applicable, and further promotions were denied. The court upheld the decision of the learned Tribunal, directing a review DPC to consider the petitioner's eligibility for promotion from 1974 to 1998. The court also issued directions for the petitioner's further promotions to be considered before his retirement, and awarded costs to the petitioner.

( 1 ) THIS case has chequered history. The petitioner has approached the Tribunal as well as this court earlier on number of occasions by filing various original Applications/writ petitions and numerous miscellaneous applications, contempt petitions etc. It is because of this reason that record of the present writ petition has become voluminous. However, it may not be necessary to state all these facts in detail having regard to the controversy involved in this writ petition. It would be appropriate to trim down the record by noticing only most relevant facts having direct bearing on the controversy in issue. After pruning the facts in this manner, the relevant facts as taken from this writ petition are the following:

( 2 ) ON 3/09/1969 the petitioner was selected as Assistant Employment Officer (Technical) ( aeo for short) in Directorate of Employment, Delhi administration in the pay scale of Rs. 1640. 00 2900. 00 (revised) through Union Public Service Commission. The petitioner was entrusted with the duties of sub-Regional Employment Officer (Technical) ( sreo for short) in addition to his own duties of AEO as Mr. D. P. Agarwal, SREO was relieved for deputation to the Govt. of India. On 20/10/1972 the petitioner was promoted on adhoc basis as SREO w. e. f. 1/07/1972 in the pay scale of Rs. 2000. 00 - Rs. 3500. 00 (revised) mr. D. P. Agarwal called bach from deputation in order to create a fake necessity for reversion of the petitioner on the basis of complaints. The Directorate of employment reverted the petitioner on 31/05/1973 on the basis of anonymous complaints and posted mr. D. P. Agarwal as SREO. On 10/07/1973 promotion orders in respect of Mr. D. P. Agarwal as Assistant director were issued and his posting as SREO was cancelled. On 12/07/1973 the petitioner was transferred from PUSA employment exchange to headquarter office against a cadre post of AEO (Randjd ). On 14/01/1974 a charge sheet was served on the petitioner and he was placed under suspension on the basis of contemplated disciplinary proceedings. On 9/04/1975 another charge sheet forming the basis of suspension dated 21/05/1974 was served and the petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated in the petition that on 26/10/1979 the orders of dismissal were set aside by this court and on 26/03/1980 the petitioner was reinstated back into service with consequential benefits. On 2 4/01/1981 the charge sheet dated 9/04/1975 was again served and inquired into by the Central vigilance Commission and none of the 35 charges were proved. The petitioner was again placed under suspension on 21/11/1982. On 9/01/1985 another charge sheet was served on the petitioner and the enquiry was held and none of the 35 charges could be proved.

( 3 ) ON 4/01/1989 the petitioner filed OA no. 233/89 praying for restoration of Status Quo Ante with further consequential benefits in the Tribunal. The petitioner filed another OA No. 234/89 in the tribunal praying for regularisation of adhoc appointment and seeking directions for amending recruitment Rules of SREO in the Tribunal. During the pendency of these OAs. , the petitioner filed certain miscellaneous petitions in which he sought the directions to the effect that Mrs. Manju Karmeshu, the respondent No. 4 herein, should not be regularised as assistant Director allegedly on the ground that she was junior to the petitioner. He also prayed for inclusion of his name in the seniority list of AEO/oio/acc and promotion as SREO as per the 1965 Rules.

( 4 ) ON 5/09/1993 a consent order was passed by the learned Tribunal directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation and the official respondents were asked to consider the said representation within three months. The petitioner accordingly made representation dated 20/09/1993 pursuant thereto action was taken by the official respondents by giving him promotion to the post of SREO w. e. f. 3/09/1974 with full back-wages. This was done vide order dated 18/03/1994.