The extant Recruitment Rules for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) were interpreted to allow consideration of the ad hoc period of service for determining eligibility for promotion, emphasizing that the word 'service' did not necessarily imply 'regular service'. The court also emphasized that the past practice of considering only regular service for promotions did not have statutory backing and could not be used to exclude the ad hoc period of service.

HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. The petitioners, Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (in short ‘DSIIDC’) have challenged the judgment dated 28.05.2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, allowing O.A. No.628/2014, filed by the respondent No.1, directing them to re examine his case for promotion to the post of Chief Project Manager (Civil) (in short “CPM”) from the date his immediate junior was granted promotion, with all consequential benefits.

2. A glance at the relevant facts of the case is considered necessary. From 15.0.2001, the respondent No.1 was working in DSIIDC on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) (in short “AEE”) on an ad hoc basis. Since 17.09.2008, he was holding current duty charge on the post of CPM (Civil). The respondent No.1 was regularized against the post of AEE (Civil) w.e.f. 15.02.2008 and from 17.09.2008, he was assigned the current duty charge on the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), (re-designated as “CPM”). On 28.10.2009, the petitioners/DSIIDC issued a charge-sheet against the respondent No.1, contemplating initiation of major penalty proceedings against him.

3. On 23.07.2010, a DPC was held to consider the names of AEEs (Civil) for promotion to the post of CPM (Civil) on a regular basis. Though the name of the respondent No.1 was forwarded to the DPC, it was not considered due to the pending charge-sheet issued against him. On the recommendation of the DPC, a promotion order was issued promoting officers junior to the respondent No.1 to the subject post. On 20.12.2011, a minor penalty of ‘censure” was imposed on the respondent No.1. However, subsequently, ‘on 19.07.2013, the Appellate Authority exonerated the respondent No.1 of the charges. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 submitted a representation to the petitioners/DSIIDC for promoting him to the subject post, having been exonerated. On not receiving any reply, he approached the Tribunal by filing an Original Application praying inter alia that he be promoted to the post of CPM (Civil) from 23.07.2010, the date when his immediate junior, i.e., petitioner No.2 was promoted and grant him all consequential benefits.

4. The aforesaid Original Application was opposed by the petitioners, who filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that the DPC was held on 23.07.2010, to consider the names of AEEs (Civil) for promotion to the post of CPM (Civil) on a regular basis but on account of the charge-sheet dated 28.10.2009 pending against the respondent No.1, the recommendations of the DPC were kept in a sealed cover. Though the petitioners/DSIIDC did not deny the fact that the minor penalty of ‘censure’ issued against the respondent No.1 in the disciplinary proceedings was recalled and he had been exonerated vide order dated 19.07.2013, it was pleaded that the respondent No.1 did not have vigilance clearance because another charge-sheet dated 20.06.2012, was issued in the meantime. Subsequently, a review DPC was held on 30.06.2014, for reviewing the recommendations of the DPCs that were conducted on 23.07.2010 and 12.09.2012. The review DPC noted that the respondent No.1 was ineligible for promotion to the subject post on the date when the initial DPC was conducted as he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of possessing the length of seven years of service in the post of CPM (Civil), being a diploma holder. Resultantly, the review DPC took a decision to place the respondent No.1’s name in a sealed cover on account of the pendency of the departmental inquiry initiated against him on the basis of the second charge-sheet dated 20.06.2012.

5. In the course of arguments before the Tribunal, the petitioners/DSIIDC were called upon to clarify as to why the respondent No.1 was found ineligible for the post of CPM (Civil) on 23.07.2010, the date when the first DPC was held for making promotions to the post of CPM (Civil). Pursuant thereto, the petitioners/DSIIDC filed an additional affidavit stating int