Promotion decisions must consider all relevant facts, and failure to do so can violate constitutional rights to equal treatment.

ORDER 

Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):

This OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

“Direct the Respondents to review the DPC dated 04.12.2020 immediately, and;

(II) Direct the Respondent to promote the applicant as Under Secretary w.e.f. 21.12.2020,

(III) Grant arrears of pay and consequent benefit to the applicant from 21.12.2020, and;

(IV) Award litigation costs to the Applicants, and;

(V) Pass any further orders or directions in favour of the applicants as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice.”

2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that the applicant is a Section Officer (SO) of Central Secretariat Service (CSS) Cadre (SOSL 2012) serving since 26.12.2014. Since 06.09.2016, he has been serving in the office of the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ministry of Labour and Employment for promoting the SOs to the next hierarchical post of Under Secretary, the respondents-DopT sought APAR Dossier and vigilance clearance of the applicant on 06.11.2020. Pursuant to the said communication, the APAR Dossier and the vigilance clearance was sent to the DoPT by his previous department i.e., Ministry of Power on different dates however before 23.11.2020, well before the DPC meeting. He highlighted that the applicant is presently working as Section Officer in the Ministry of Labour since 06.09.2019 and this was duly intimated by the Ministry of Power to the DoPT. Subsequently, on 01.12.2020 provisional common seniority list of SO Grade of CSS for the year 2012 was issued by DoPT wherein he figured at Sl. No. 122. Thereafter DPC was convened on 04.12.2020 for the said promotion. Consequent to the said DPC, promotion Order dated 21.12.2020 was issued by the DoPT wherein the applicant’s name was left out deliberately and his juniors were promoted. Thereafter, on 16.09.2021, DoPT responded to the RTI application of the applicant stating that the APAR of the applicant was received late i.e., on 22.12.2020 after the issuance of promotion order dated 21.12.2020. However, the certified copy of the Dak register of Ministry of Power clearly suggest that the applicant’s APAR were received in DoPT on 23.11.2020 well before the DPC meeting. Counsel for the applicant argued that if the respondents had not received applicant’s APAR before the DPC they could have taken appropriate measures to call for the same as has been done by them earlier while promoting SOs in the year 2009, 2010 and 2011. This time they had failed to take any steps. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred various representations the latest one being 13.08.2021 but to no avail. He sent legal notice also on 21.01.2022 but did not receive any response from the respondents till date. Hence, the present OA has been filed.

3. The counsel of the applicant argued assiduously using the following grounds :-

“A. The respondents have blatantly ignored the fact that the reason given by DoPT i.e. non-availability of APAR Dossier is incorrect whereas the applicant's APAR Dossier was delivered in DoPT on 23.11.2020 well before DPC meeting and the respondents have overlooked the said fact thereby causing discrimination with the applicant.

B. It is a settled principle that the proceedings of a DPC may be reviewed only if the DPC has not taken all material facts into consideration or if material facts have not been brought to the notice of the DPC or if there have been grave errors in the procedure followed by the DPCs. One of the situations in which review DPC can be held is where eligible persons were omitted to be considered.

C. It is a settled prin