Promotions under administrative service regulations must adhere to timelines and fulfill obligations to convene promotion committees as mandated.

ORDER

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

The applicants aggrieved by the huge delay in convening the DPC for promoting them to the next higher post have approached this Tribunal.

2. All the applicants were originally recruited as Programme Executives (Class-II) post. Applicants Nos. 1 to 13 have now retired from service of the respondents. Applicants Nos. 14 to 17 are in service as on the date of filing the Original Application. The next promotion post is Assistant Station Director (Class-I) governed by Annexure A2 All India Radio (Class-I Post) Recruitment Rules, 1963. According to the said Rules, Programme Executives, on completion of 5 years of regular service are eligible to be considered for promotion as Assistant Station Director. According to the applicants all of them had completed 5 years of regular service and have become eligible for being considered for the next promotion post. However, it was not due for a long period.

3. To create an organized structure with increased promotional avenues in a time bound manner, the All-India Radio Grade-A Posts Recruitment Rules, 1963 was repealed by introducing Annexure A3 Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990. Additional posts were created at higher level. The qualifying service for promotion from Programme Executive to Assistant Station Director was reduced to 3 years. It also provided for convening of DPC on a yearly basis. However, due to administrative lapses, DPC was not convened nor constituted for considering the applicants for promotion on a regular basis for several years. It is alleged that the respondents failed to convene annually, the mandated DPC for over 26 years and kept the post in IBS from Junior Time Scale and above levels vacant. Throughout the entire service of the applicants, there were vacancies existing and though the applicants were fully qualified and awaiting promotions, they were denied promotions without any justifiable reasons, except administrative delay and lapse in conducting the DPC.

4. Aggrieved by the inordinate delay in convening the DPC, several persons holding the posts of Programme Executives and employees association representing them approached the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 243 of 2002 and seeking a direction to the respondents to hold the DPCs for promotion to JTS, Senior Time Scale (Programme) and Junior Administrative Grade (Programme) Grades of IBS. The OA was disposed of on 21.1.2002 by Annexure A4 order directing the respondents to convene regular DPC meetings as early as possible, preferably within 4 months and to consider the case of the applicants along with other eligible candidates for promotion to JTS/STS/JAG and SAG and pass suitable orders in accordance with law. Since the order was not complied with, they initiated contempt proceedings in CP(C) No. 55 of 2003 in the above OA. Contempt Petition was closed by Annexure A5 order dated 21.8.2003 taking note of the compliance in piecemeal and by granting last opportunity to the respondents to convene the DPC, within a period of 3 months, in respect of all employees.

5. Since the convening of the DPC was again delayed, another Contempt Petition No. 39 of 2004 was filed in the said OA. The respondents filed MA No. 1919 of 2006 in the said MA seeking 20 weeks’ time for implementing the directions starting from 10.11.2006. MA was disposed of with a direction to comply with the directions meticulously and warning that in case of non-compliance, serious view of the matter would be taken. The said order is produced as Annexure A6.

6. In spite of the above repeated directions, the said order was not complied