JUDGMENT
C.M. Nayar, J.
(1) The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent to hold meetings of review D.P.C.(s) for the post of Superintending Engineer and further to the post of Chief Engineer in respect of all D.P.C.(s) subsequent to the D.P.C. wherein the name of the immediate junior of the petitioner in the grade of Executive Engineer was considered for promotion and, it found fit, to promote the petitioner with effect from the date he was found entitled to such promotion with all consequential benefits.
(2) The petitioner joined the services of the respondent, Delhi Development Authority, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Authority’) on October 7, 1972 as an Assistant Engineer. Prior to that the petitioner was holding a commissioned rank in the Army having joined the same as Short Services Regular Commissioned Officer. It is alleged in the petition that after being released from the Army and at the time of joining the Authority, the pay of the petitioner was fixed, taking into consideration the services rendered by him in the Army. He was not, however, given the benefit of service rendered in the Army for the purposes of seniority and further promotion. The petitioner made numerous representations and he was given his right placement in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide order dated November 21, 1986. This order is filed as Annexure P-1 to the petition and reads as follows: “E.O.No-3894 dated 21.11.1986 In accordance with the advice of the Ministry of Urban Development contained in their letter No. K-11011/42/83-DDVI Vol.II dated 22.8.1985 and the Resolution No. 58 dated 30.6.86 of the Authority, Sh. J.L. Rajdan is assigned placement in the cadre of AEs (Civil) between S.No.6 and 7 i.e. below Shri Banarsi Dass and above Sh. Chandok Banerjee in the approved/notified seniority list of AEs (Civil) circular No. F7(2)/71/GAI dated 16.12.74 and modified vide E.O.No. 3229 dtd. 8.11.78. This will not entitle him to any financial benefit and payment of arrears on this account. The deemed date of his appointment will be 24.12.1966. This issues with the approval of Vc, DDA.”
(3) The petitioner contends that he was entitled to be assigned proper seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in terms of Rule 6 of the Released Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers Rules.
(4) The petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer w.e.f. April 4, 1981 on the basis of seniority as Assistant Engineer reckoned w.e.f. October 7, 1972. The petitioner as a result of his representations was granted the necessary relief on February 19,1991. The order in this regard is filed as Annexure P-3. The same reads as follows: “On the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the Vice-Chairman, Dda is pleased to notionally promote Shri J.L.Razdan to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) with effect from 7.3.75, the date his junior Shri C. Banerjee was promoted. The Vices-Chairman is further pleased to order that Shri J.L. Razdan would be assigned seniority above Shri C. Banerjee as E.E. He is further pleased to order that the pay of Shri Razdan will be notionally fixed but he would not be entitled to the arrears of pay etc. on this account.”
(5) The reading of the above order would indicate that the grievance of the petitioner was redressed and he was assigned seniority in the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. March 7, 1975, the date his junior Shri C.Banerjee was promoted.
(6) The only grievance of the petitioner is that he should have been considered for the next promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineer on the basis of seniority as an Executive Engineer which was re-fixed w.e.f. March 7,1975 by order dated February 19, 1991. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as a result of the order dated February 19, 1991, the petitioner would become senior to Shri C. Banerjee and all other officers whose names appear before Shri C. Banerjee and, as a consequence, he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer over and above the officers who are admittedly junior to him. The averments are made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition and the same read as follows: “7. It is respectfully submitted that, in the meantime, i.e. before the petitioner could be given his rightful placement in the cadre of Executive Engineer, many officers who were senior to the petitioner as per the then existing seniority list, were promoted to the next grade of Superintending Engineer and even to the grade of Chief Engineer. According to the admission of the respondents in order dated 19.2.91, the petitioner would become senior to Shri C. Banerjee and all other officers whose names appear below Shri C. Banerjee. The petitioner annexes herewith the seniority list of Superintending Engineers issued on 4.7.88 and marks the same as Annexure P-5 to its petition. The petitioner gives here in below in tabular form the particulars of promotion of all officers from Serial No. 9 to Serial No. 27 who have all become junior to the petitioner in the Grade of Executive Engineer consequent on the issuance of order dated 19.2.1991: 63. Vol. Lix J.K. Razdan v. Delhi Development Authority Sr. No. Names(S/Shri) Date of Date of promotion promotion as Se as C.E. 9. C. Banerjee 5.9.81 30.1.85 10. R.K. Bhandari 5.9.81 1.8.85 11. M.C. Bahl 4.7.83 – 12. Om Parkash 4.7.83 March, 89 13. H.C. Sharma 1.3.84 14. R.G. Bhatnagar 1.3.84 – 15. R.C. Malhotra 4.3.84 – 16. B.K. Roy 1.7.84 – 17. Amit Biswas 30.8.84 – 18. K. Kuppaswamy 30.8.84 – 19. H.C. Gupta 26.12.85 – 20. D.P. Singh 28.11.85 21. Suresh Mehta 28.11.85 22. S.C. Kaushal 26.12.85 – 23. R.L. Sharma 26.12.85 – 24. S.K. Malhotra 26.5.87 25. S.C. Tayal 26.5.87 26. S.P. Rastogi 24.9.87 – 27. R.B. Malhotra 31.12.87
(7) The petitioner having not got the necessary relief by representation, has filed the present writ petition in this Court. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondent Authority wherein it is reiterated that the review D.P.C.(s) which the petitioner is seeking have already been held on November 28, 1990 and the name of the petitioner has been duly considered from the date his junior Shri C.Banerjee was promoted. The learned Counsel for the Authority has contended that his juniors were considered for promotion in the D.P.C.(s) held on September 5, 1981, July 4, 1983, June 29, 1984, November 28, 1985 and April 14, 1987 respectively. The Minutes of these proceedings were reviewed on November 28, 1990 and the petitioner was found unfit. The next meetings were held on September 8,1993 and December 17, 1993 which did not recommend the petitioner as fit for promotion.
(8) The learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has contended that the seniority of the petitioner for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) having been fixed vide order dated February 19, 1991, the meeting of the review D.P.C. held prior to that date on November 28, 1990 was, accordingly, of no consequence.
(9) The record of the proceedings of the minutes of the D.P.C(s) held on November 28,1990 has been placed before this Court. I have carefully perused the same. It is indicated at Item No. 2 of these proceedings that the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer as on March 7,1975 and the review D.P.C. granted him seniority with effect from that date on the basis of his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The petitioner was, accordingly, assigned seniority over and above Shri C. Banerjee. Similarly, the review D.P.C.(s) considered the performance of the petitioner, such as,A.C.Rs and vigilance clearance status for the subsequent years for which the meetings of the Committees had already been held i.e. in 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1987 respectively. The review D.P.C. did not consider him fit for the promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer after assessing his suitability based on his performance and A.C.Rs. in respect of all these years. Faced with the situation the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the review D.P.C.(s) held prior to the date of February 9, 1991 when he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. March 7, 1975 cannot be said to be in accordance with law. The petitioner should have been considered by the review D.P.C.(s) after that date. The consideration of November 28, 1990 is no consideration in the eyes of law.
(10) I am not impressed with this argument. The meetings of the D.P.C. was held on November 28, 1990 wherein the petitioner was considered firstly for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. March 7,1975 and having found him eligible from that date, the review D.P.C. considered him for further promotion for the respective years when his juniors were promoted for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. This in fact means that the petitioner was granted seniority w.e.f. March 7, 1975 on the post of Executive Engineer in the meeting held on November 28, 1990. The formal order was issued only on February 19, 1991. That does not mean that review D.P.C.(s) could not meet prior to the issuance of the formal order to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The record, which has been produced before me, does not in any manner indicate that the claim of the petitioner was not considered in accordance with law. The selection was not based on seniority but on merit. There is no allegation of malafide or bias against the members of the D.P.C.(s). It is well settled that this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the acts and proceedings of the Selection Committee. This is so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Major General Ips Dewan v. Union of India and Others, and in Chabungbam Ibohal Singh v. Union of India and Others,. The petitioner at best was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The record indicates that he was so considered and there was no unfairness or arbitrariness in the proceedings of the Committee. For the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.