Back
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
OA No. 799/2018
MA Nos.867, 1546 & 1547/2018
Reserved on: 04.12.2018
Pronounced on : 20.12.2018
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon’ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
Vijay Raj Anand (44 years Group A)
Assistant Director (Ballistics),
Forensic Science Laboratory,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
Madhuban Chown, Rohini,
Delhi-85.
… Applicant
( By Mr. O. P. Gehlaut, Advocate )
Versus
1. Government of NCT of Delhi
through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Government Secretariat,
I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110001.
2. Sh Sri Narain,
Asstt. Director (Chemistry),
Forensic Science Laboratory,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
Madhuban Chown, Rohini,
Delhi-85.
3. Sh. Amar Pal Singh,
Assistant Director (Chemistry),
Regional Forensic Science Laboratory,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
Yashwant Place, Chanakya Puri,
New Delhi.
OA-799/2018
2
4. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta,
Assistant Director (Photo),
Forensic Science Laboratory,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
Madhuban Chown, Rohini,
Delhi-85.
… Respondents
(By Ms. Harvinder Oberoi for Respondent No.1; Mr. S.
Vallinayagam for Respondents 2 to 4, Advocates)
O R D E R
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman :
The applicant was appointed as Senior Scientific Officer
(SSO) in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) of the
Government of NCT of Delhi, by way of direct recruitment.
Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director.
Next promotion is to the post of Deputy Director. In the
context of making promotion to the post of Deputy Director,
the respondents prepared a final combined eligibility list of
Assistant Directors, through proceedings dated 27.12.2017. The
name of the applicant figured at serial number 15 therein.
2. The applicant contends that the 1st respondent has
wrongfully placed respondents 2, 3 and 4 at serial numbers 11,
12 and 14 in the list, above him. He contends that his
appointment as SSO by way of direct recruitment was through
an order, which was passed earlier in point of time, compared
OA-799/2018
3
to the orders of appointment of respondents 2 to 4. He has
placed reliance upon certain office memoranda in support of
his contention.
3. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit opposing
the OA. It is stated that the eligibility list was prepared on the
basis of seniority in the posts of SSO, and not only the methods
of appointment, but also the nature of posts are totally different
for various persons. It is stated that once the source is not the
same, the applicant cannot draw comparison with respondents
2 to 4, and since their orders of promotion/appointment are
earlier in point in time, the applicant cannot have any
grievance.
4. We heard Shri O. P. Gehlaut, learned counsel for the
applicant, and Ms. Harvinder Oberoi for respondent No.1, and
Shri S. Vallinayagam, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4.
5. The final combined eligibility list of Assistant
Directors dated 27.12.2017 is under challenge. The FSL had
several specializations at the level of SSO itself. They are SSO
(Physics), SSO (Chemistry), SSO (Documentation), SSO
(Photography), SSO (Ballistics), SSO (Biology), etc. The
applicant was appointed as SSO (Ballistics) on being selected by
OA-799/2018
4
the UPSC, and he joined the post on 01.09.2006. The 4th
respondent was also appointed as SSO through direct
recruitment. However, his specialization is Photography, and
he joined on 29.06.2006, about two months earlier to the
applicant. Respondents 2 and 3 were appointed as SSOs
(Chemistry) on promotion on 25.05.2006.
6. From the point of view of assumption of office, the
applicant is last to join the post of SSO. The principle
enunciated in various office memoranda, or the precedents that
the date of the proceedings issued by the UPSC can be applied,
if only the selection and appointments are
