Delay in holding Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) unjustifiable, emphasizing the need for regular annual intervals for DPCs and prompt filling of anticipated vacancies.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to for short as the Tribunal) dated 05.09.2014 as also the order dated 24.04.2015 passed in Review Application. The OA as also the Review Application filed by the petitioner stand dismissed.

2. The pleadings in this matter are complete. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

3. Necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this petition, as stated in the petition, are as under.

4. The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Project Officer in the Civil Aviation Department on 17.01.1993. He was promoted to the post of Senior Scientific Officer, known as Assistant Director (AE) on 17.03.2003. Petitioner was again promoted to the post of Deputy Director on ad hoc basis by an order dated 14.09.2010. The Recruitment Rules, known as Civil Aviation Department Class-I and Class-II post Recruitment Rules, 1969, were notified on 16.06.1969. As per the Recruitment Rules, Senior Scientific Officers were eligible to be considered for the post of Deputy Director (R&D) on completion of requisite number of years service as a Senior Scientific Officer. There was no other essential qualification prescribed for promotion. By a Notification dated 10.08.1992, the Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Director (R&D) were amended. On 17.03.2008, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Director on regular basis. As per the Recruitment Rules, the petitioner became eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (AE) on 17.03.2008. The petitioner claims that he had fulfilled all the educational qualifications, experience and technical qualifications in the year 2008 itself. The petitioner was also the senior-most person to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (AE).

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents had not conducted any DPC for the promotion to the post of Deputy Director since 2008. In view thereof, the petitioner has been deprived of promotion on regular basis and also the delay in conducting the DPC would affect his being considered for the next promotion. The respondents, in the meanwhile, decided to fill up 07 posts of Deputy Director through direct recruitment through UPSC for which an advertisement was published in the Employment News for the week 28.08.2010 to 03.09.2010 and during this period 07 posts have been filled up. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the year 2008, the petitioner became eligible for promotion and being the senior-most eligible person he would have been considered for promotion but the DPC was not conducted for any justifiable reason. The petitioner claims to have made a number of representations, including a representation dated 27.07.2012 to the respondents for considering him for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (AE), but no reply was received till the filing of the OA. By an order dated 23.08.2012, the respondents considered the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner was informed that a proposal for holding a DPC for regular promotion against the vacancy for the year 2009-2010 was referred to the Ministry of Civil Aviation for consideration and the same had been referred to UPSC with the approval of the competent authority. This is according to the communication dated 30.11.2010. On 20.12.2013, the UPSC recommended the petitioner for promotion against the vacancy of 2009-2010 and also observed that the petitioner became eligible on 17.03.2008. However, the petitioner instead of being promoted w.e.f. 01.01.2009, was promoted by an order dated 20.12.2013 from the date of assumption of charge. This action of the respondents is claimed to be illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed. The OA filed by the petitioner has been dismissed which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

6.