Judgment · High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate:- 23 – 4 – 2012 CoramThe Honourable Mr. Justice ELIPE DHARMA RAOandThe Honourable Mr. Justice M. VENUGOPALW.P. No. 11337 of 2012andM.P. No. 1 of 20121.The Union of Indiathrough its SecretaryMinistry of Information and BroadcastingGovernment of IndiaShastri Bhavan, A WingNew Delhi2.The Chief Executive OfficerPrasar BharathiAll India RadioAkashvani BhavanParliament StreetNew Delhi3.The Director GeneralAll India RadioAkashvani BhavanParliament StreetNew Delhi4.The Chief Engineer (South Zone)All India Radio and DoordarshanSwami Sivananda SalaiChepaukChennai.. Petitioners..Vs..

MD Sikandar Ali2. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai – 600 104.... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records inrespect of the impugned order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the secondrespondent in O.A. No. 571 of 2009 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr. R. Sureshkumar, SPC for CG- - -

O R D E R(made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.)Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunaldated 22.3.2011 passed in O.A. No. 571 of 2009, the Union of India hascome with the present appeal.

The facts leading to filing of the writ appeal are as follows:-The first respondent joined the All India Radio as EngineeringAssistant in December, 1975 and was promoted as Senior EngineerAssistant in 1984 and further promoted as Assistant Engineer in 1989.Thereafter, the first respondent passed AIMETE from the Institute of Electronic and Telecommunication Engineers, New Delhi and got includedin the Assistant Engineer eligibility list as on 01.01.2000.Subsequently, by order dated 26.3.2004, 88 Assistant Engineers werepromoted to the Junior Time Scale on ad-hoc basis. Thereafter, byorder dated 24.4.2007, the first respondent was promoted to the JuniorTime Scale Grade of IB(E)S on regular basis. According to the firstrespondent, though several representations were made to the petitionersfor regularization of service, they were not considered by thepetitioners. Since no steps were taken, the first respondent hadapproached the Tribunal by way of O.A.

The stand of the Department before the Tribunal was thatthere had been unavoidable delay in holding the DPC due to pendency insome court proceedings. The Tribunal, considering the contentionsraised, in the light of various decisions of the Supreme Court, came toa conclusion that the first respondent has made out a substantive caseand allowed the Original Application. The aforesaid order is underchallenge in this Writ Petition.

Learned Standing Counsel once again reiterated thecontentions raised before the Tribunal. The foremost contention isthat due to pendency of litigations and Prasar Bharathi attainingautonomous status, the DPC could not be convened and such delay cannotconfer any right on the first respondent to claim promotion as theearlier promotion was on ad-hoc basis.

From the contentions raised and the materials on record, it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is not in dispute that the first respondent has become eligible forpromotion to the post of Assistant Engineers Junior Time scale on thedate of their ad hoc promotion, i.e., 26.3.2004. It is not the case ofthe petitioners that the respondent was not promoted against a regularpost or no substantive post was vacant at the relevant point of time. It is the stand of the petitioners that pendency of litigation andnon-convening of DPC had caused the delay in promotion. For the delaycaused on the side of the petitioners, the respondent cannot be blamedand he cannot be denied the promotion. It is not disputed that had theDPC been met at the relevant time, the first respondent would have gothis promotion. Because of the lethargic attitude of the petitioners, the first respondent applicant had suffered for his promotion. Evengoing by the averments made by the petitioners, the litigation statedto have been pending has come to a quietus in 2003. Therefore, thepetitioners are duty bound to constitute DPC in 2003 itself. Instead, they constituted DPC in 2007 by virtue of which, the delay had occurredand for the non-proper functioning of the petitioners, they have tosuffer. On consideration of the above stated facts and circumstancesand the decisions of the Supreme Court on this score, the Tribunal hascorrectly interfered with the matter and allowed the OriginalApplication. Since substantial justice has been rendered, we see noreason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the writpetition is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the sameis dismissed. It is needless to mention that if the petitioners areaggrieved with the direction to conduct a review DPC, it is for them toapproach the Tribunal to get the same corrected in accordance withlaw. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition isclosed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrargri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai – 600 104.+1cc to Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, SPC for (CG)SR 26696MS(CO)km/8.

W.P. No. 11337 of 2012