IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Service Bench No. 141 of 2015

9^th September, 2025

Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Ashish ……Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and Others ……..Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd Matlub and Mr. Manokam Nautiyal Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal , learned Standing Counsel for the Union

of India/respondents.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

The challenge in this petition is made to the

judgment dated 26.11.2014 passed in O.A. No. 49 of 2011 Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Ashish Vs. Union of India by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (for short “the Tribunal”), by which, the original application (hereinafter referred to as ‘the application’) filed by the petitioner seeking her promotion from the backdate has

been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is the claim of the petitioner that she was initially appointed as Manager in Song and Drama Division,

Government of India, Ministry of Broadcasting on 18.04.2000. She was placed at Serial No. 6 in the seniority list of Manager/Producer in Song and Drama Division as on 01.01.2002. The petitioner became entitled for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Director on completion of three years service as Manager/Producer in accordance with Song & Drama Division (Deputy Director and Assistant Director) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1987. The last appointment on the post of Assistant Director was made in the year 2002 by promoting her senior, who was at serial no. 1 in the seniority list.

4. According to the petitioner, in terms of the memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is required to meet prior to the occurrence of any vacancy. It is, therefore, essential that regular DPC meetings are held every year for each category of posts to ensure that an approved select panel is available in advance to fill vacancies arising during the year. The respondents, failed to convene the meeting of the DPC for the year 2003 to 2007. Vacancies for the post of Assistant Director arose on 01.08.2006, 01.09.2007, and 01.11.2007; however, neither was the DPC convened, nor were promotions made by the respondents. The petitioner was subsequently promoted on 15.05.2009. The petitioner contends that she was thereby deprived of her legitimate claim for promotion in seniority to the post of Assistant Director with effect from the date of the vacancy, i.e., w.e.f. 01.09.2007. The petitioner filed the application before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.11.2024. The same is now under challenge.

5. The respondents filed their response to the application before the Tribunal. It was submitted that in the year 2006, the Ministry of Finance did not permit the filling of provisional posts as part of the implementation of the Expenditure Reforms Commission (ERC), which was constituted in 2000 by the Ministry of Finance to examine the rising rate of non-development expenditure by the Government and to recommend measures for downsizing government operations. Consequently, the DPC were delayed due to the recommendations of the ERC. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal observed that the date of promotion is the date on which the promotion is granted, and not the date on which the vacancy arises.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned judgment is unsustainable in the eyes of law. He submits that when the application was initially filed before the Tribunal, petitioner was not aware of the order dated 29.04.2011 issued by the respondents by which the promotion of the petitioner had already been antedated to 01.09.2007. When petitioner came to know about it, her counsel ga