Sealed cover procedure and ad-hoc promotion guidelines under DoPT OM 1992 apply to LDCE; indefinite denial of promotion due to prolonged pending criminal case without reviews is unjust; department must consider ad-hoc promotion after 2 years.

ORDER

Hon’ble Dr. Amit Sahai, Member (A)

1. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in issuing appointment order despite declaring him successful in examination for promotion to the post of Postman, the applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

2. Facts in brief to adjudicate the case are as under:-

2.1 The applicant was appointed on the post of GDS BPM, Post Office Titodi (Pander), District Bhilwara Division on 23.03.2000. While working as GDS BPM, Titodi (Pander), in Bhilwara Division, the applicant was placed under “Put-off Duty” w.e.f. 27.07.2000, vide SPO’s Bhilwara Memo dated 09.08.2000 on the ground that the disciplinary action was contemplated/pending against him. He remained under “Put-off Duty” for the period from 27.07.2000 to 31.07.2001, which was revoked on 31.07.2001 vide SPO’s Bhilwara Memo dated 30.07.2001. A charge-sheet was issued vide Memo dated 01.10.2004. An inquiry was conducted as per the departmental rules and he was awarded punishment of debarring from appearing in the Recruitment Examination for the post of Postman and Postal Assistant for a period of three years vide Memo dated 30.01.2006.

2.2 The respondent no.2 invited applications from the GDS for promotion to the post of Postman under respective Postal Divisions. The applicant applied against GDS quota for the post of Postman against three vacant positions under Bhilwara Division. Being eligible he was granted permission to apply for the departmental examination for the year 2012 held on 07.04.2013. As per the division wise merit list dated 08.04.2013 (Annexure A/1), circulated by the O/o Respondent No. 2, the applicant was declared ‘Provisionally’ successful in this departmental examination. Subsequently, respondent no.3 circulated the list of 3 successful candidates against GDS quota under Bhilwara Division vide order dated 10/11.04.2013 (Annexure A/2), wherein the applicant stands at Sl. No.3.

2.3 Among the three successful candidates from Bhilwara Division, the respondent organization directed the other two successful candidates to undergo training on 12.05.2013, thereafter on 21.05.2013, they were promoted to the post of Postman in Post Office Bhilwara. However, the applicant was not called to undergo the said training and was also not promoted. The applicant when came to know that two of his GDS colleagues have been promoted, he submitted a representation to respondent no.3 on 30.05.2013 (Annexure A/3) wherein, he averred that his candidature for appearing in the departmental examination was ‘Provisional’, but his candidature was never cancelled and since he has been successful in the departmental examination, he should be promoted. He further stated in his representation that he was debarred for only three years from appearing in the departmental promotional examination vide order dated 30.01.2006. His debarment being over at the time of his appearing in the departmental examination, therefore, he should be promoted without any obstacle.

2.4 The applicant did not receive any reply from respondent no.3 on his representation dated 30.05.2013 (Annexure A/3), therefore, he submitted another representation to the respondent no.2 on 30.08.2013 (Annexure A/4) to look into his grievance sympathetically and settle this issue by promoting him to the post of Postman. However, this representation too has also not been replied and being aggrieved for not granting promotion, the applicant has preferred this Original Application.

3. In the r