Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Tushar Rao Gedela, JJ.
Umar Daraz - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 14253 of 2022 and C.M. No. 43516 of 2022
Decided On : 10-11-2022
Movement from class-IV to class-III, despite involving a selection test, is classified as a promotion rather than direct recruitment under the Modified Career Progression Scheme.
Headnote:(A) Modified Career Progression Scheme - Financial upgradation - The petitioner challenged the denial of third financial upgradation under the MACP on grounds that his appointment to class-III was a direct recruitment rather than a promotion. The Court upheld the Tribunal's determination that such movement constituted a promotion as there was a selection process involved. (Paras 2-16)
(B) Promotion - Definition - Movement from class-IV to class-III through a selection test does not negate the nature of the appointment as a promotion under the specified quota. (Paras 2-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed in 1974 as a Call Man, transitioned to class-III in 1982 and received two promotions thereafter. The Tribunal ruled that the petitioner’s transition was a promotion and could not be considered as direct recruitment.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's decision was upheld, affirming that the petitioner was moved into class-III on a promotional basis, thus denying entitlement to a third financial upgradation.
Issues: The primary questions were whether the movement constituted direct recruitment or promotion and the correctness of the Tribunal’s conclusion on this issue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concurred with the Tribunal that even with a test, the moval from class-IV to class-III was indeed a promotion per recruitment rules.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges denial of macp upgradation. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner claims moving to class-iii was direct recruitment. (Para 2 , 12) |
| 3. court assesses petitioner's promotion history. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 4. rules specify promotions based on selection, not direct recruitment. (Para 8 , 14) |
| 5. court distinguishes between promotion and ldce. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. petition dismissed due to lack of merit. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 25.09.2019, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to grant third financial upgradation under the Modified Career Progression Scheme (MACP), has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that when the petitioner was appointed to the class-III post, the same was to be treated as a direct recruitment and not a promotion and as such he was entitled to the benefit of the third MACP. He submits that respondents have incorrectly denied him the benefit assuming the said appointment to class-III post as a promotional appointment.
3. Petitioner on 17.04.1974 was appointed as a Call Man in the Northern Railway, Delhi Division, which is a class-IV post. He was moved from class-IV to class-III (Clerical) after undertaking a test in 1982 and subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 27.05.1987 and Head Clerk on 22.02.1996.
4. Benefit of financial upgradation under the MACP was granted to several employees by order dated 21.04.2010. Petitioner was denied the said benefit. Accordingly, petitioner filed the subject Original Application contending that he had only received two promotions, one to the post of Senior Clerk and second to the post of Head Clerk in 1987 and 1996, respectively and his moving from class-IV to class-III was after undergoing a test and as such was not a promotion and was a direct recruitment.
5. The Tribunal by the impugned order has held that moving of petitioner from class-IV to class-III was a promotion though after a test and the same could not be compared to Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) as the same was strictly by seniority, subject to the employee satisfying certain basic requirements attached to the said promotional post.
6. Reference may be had to the order of promotion dated 12.02.1982 in respect of the petitioner, which reads as under:
"NOTICE
As a result of selection from Class IV staff to Class III staff @ 33. 1/3 % against departmental quota the following candidates placed on the provisional panel for the post of clerk Gr. 260-400 (Rs.) are appointed to officiate as such and posted on the stations shown against each;...................................................."
7. It may be noticed that petitioner figures at Sr. No.12 in the said list of employees, who were placed on the panel for the post of Clerk by notice dated 12.02.1982. Further, the notice dated 12.02.1982 shows that the selection process was in respect of 33.1/3 % departmental quota.
8. Reference may be had to the relevant Recruitment Rules in respect of the subject post i.e., Train Clerks, which read as under:
"(v) TRAINS CLERKS
126. (1) The posts in the category of Train Clerks in the pay scale Rs.3050-4590 will be filled as under:
(i) 50% by direct recruitment through Railway Recruitment Board;
(ii) 33. 1/3 % by promotion by a process of selection from eligible categories of staff in level-1 as specified by the Zonal Railways as per procedure prescribed in para 189; and Points men `A' in Level- 2.
{Authority: Railways Board's Letter No. E(NG)I/2010/PM 2/6 dated 09.05.2019}
(iii) 16. 2/3 % by promotion entirely on merit of Matriculate Group `D' employees from eligible categories, as specified by the Zonal Railways for (ii) above, with a minimum of 2 years regular service in the concerned seniority unit on the basis of a competitive examination consisting of Written Test and Record of Service of 85 and 15 marks respectively. "
9.
