JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. CWP.2883/99 was disposed of by this Court vide
judgment and order dated 30.5.2002. This writ petition
was filed by the petitioner impugning the judgment
dated 21.12.98 passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
The judgment of the Tribunal was upheld by the
aforesaid judgment dated 30.5.2002.
2. It may be stated that the petitioner was appointed
to the post of Assistant Employment Officer (Technical)
(‘AEO’ for short) on 3.9.1969. The question was
whether he was entitled to be promoted to the post of
Sub-regional Employment officer (Technical) (‘SREO’ for
short). In our judgment dated 30.5.2002 we have noted
that Notification dated 6.5.1965 was issued prescribing
the mode of recruitment for the post of SREO, AEO etc.
in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to
Article 309. It was further pointed out that these
Recruitment Rules stood cancelled vide Notification
dated 27.3.1968 where after by another Notification
dated 25.11.1968 Rules for appointment to the post of
SREO(T) and AEO(T) in the Directorate of Employment,
Training and Technical Education, Delhi Administration
were framed. It was held that since the petitioner was
appointed under these Rules of 25.11.1968 as his
appointment was made on 3.9.1969 he was governed by
these Rules and not the Rules of 1965. Under the Rules
promulgated by Notification dated 25.11.1968, since the
post of SREO was to be filled by directed recruitment,
therefore, the petitioner could not be considered for
promotion to this post at all.
3. The petitioner by way of present review application
alleges that an error apparent on the face of record
has crept and this error led to the dismissal of his
writ petition. According to the petitioner Rules of
1965 issued by Notification dated 6.5.1965 were not
repealed in totality vide Notification dated 27.3.1968
inasmuch as the Notification of 27.3.1968 clearly
stipulated that the Rules of 1965 were cancelled only
in respect of post mentioned in the Schedule annexed
therewith and the said Schedule did not include the
post of SREO. In order to give further credence to
this argument he pointed out that these Rules of 1965
in respect of SREO remained in force up to 22.3.1983 as
was clear from Notification dated 23.2.1983 which
amended Rules 1965 for the post of SREO.
4. The submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner pointing the aforesaid error appears to be
correct. The observations in the judgment dated
30.5.2002 at Page-26 thereof to this effect would not
be correct. However, even when this factual error is
corrected it would not vary the ultimate outcome. Fact
remains that insofar as the petitioner is concerned he
was appointed in 1969 to the post of AEO(T) under Rules
which were promulgated by Notification dated
25.11.1968. Therefore, he was governed by these Rules
and his further promotion would take place in
accordance with these Rules. This is what we have held
in our judgment. As pointed out in the judgment
insofar as post of SREO under these Rules is concerned
the same could be filled up by way of direct
recruitment and not by way of promotions.
5. It is not disputed that the Recruitment Rules of
1965 provide for promotion to the post of SREO. The
said rules also prescribed mode of recruitment to the
post AEO. According to the Rules of 1965 promotion to
the two categories of SREO is to be made from amongst
the eligible AEO. The essential qualification for
promotion is a degree preferably in Economics or
Commerce. The petitioner do not satisfy the conditions
of eligibility. The petitioner was appointed to the
post of AEO(T) and he holds B.E. degree. The post of
AEO is different from the post of AEO(T) with different
qualifications. The former is eligible for promotion
to the post of SREO whereas the latter is not. The
petitioner was appointed in 1969 as AEO(T) under the
Rules made in 1968. It may be seen there from that a
degree in Electrical or Mechanical/Engineering is an
essential qualification for AEO(T) and the post of
SREO(T) is to be filled by direct recruitment only.
6. In the reply to review application it is also
clarified that the petitioner had tried to get himself
selected by UPSC for the post of SREO(T) but could not
succeed and, therefore, it follows that merely because
the post of SREO continued to exist even after 1968
does not mean that the petitioner could be promoted to
the said post.
7. It is also stated that the Rules of 1965 were
cancelled in 1983 and fresh Recruitment Rules for the
post of SREO were issued vide notification dated
23.2.1983. The feeder posts for promotion to SREO are
Occupational Information Officer and Assistant Career
Counsellor. Therefore with effect from 23.2.1983 the
post of AEO ceased to be a feeder post of promotion to
the post of SREO.
8. During arguments when the petitioner was confronted
with the aforesaid legal position the learned counsel
for the petitioner tried to argue that since the
petitioner was promoted to the post of SREO in 1994
w.e.f. 1974 after taking into consideration all the
facts, such promotion could not have been revoked.
This aspect has been dealt with in the judgment dated
30.5.2002 at length and the contention of the
petitioner on this account was rejected after scanning
through and discussing the entire material and finding
that the petitioner was considered for promotion to
this post by mistake. The petitioner cannot be
permitted to re-argue this aspect of the matter in
review petition as the jurisdiction of this court in
review is limited. We, therefore, do not find any
merit in the review petition. It is accordingly
dismissed.
9. However, at this stage, we may point out that while
disposing of the writ petition vide judgment dated
30.5.2002 we had expressed our feeling that the
petitioner had suffered immensely due to the lapses on
the part of official respondent. We had directed that
the petitioner be considered for promotion in his own
cadre as per the Rules. We had also noted the
assurance given by Mr. Shali, learned counsel for
respondent No. 1 to the effect that the petitioner’s
case for promotion as per Rules applicable shall be
duly considered. While disposing of the writ petition
we had, inter alia issued the following directions :
I. The case of the petitioner for further
promotions to various posts as per the
Recruitment Rules applicable to him, to the
considered forthwith and in any case, before
the retirement of the petitioner.
II. It is hoped that while considering the case of
the petitioner, the official respondents shall
keep in view the aforesaid peculiar facts
which made the petitioner struggling for his
legitimate rights in his entire career and
also keeping in view the fact that the
petitioner was afterall found suitable for
promotion to the post of SREO, and therefore,
he would not be deprived of his legitimate
promotions now in his own cadre and his case
would be considered objectively,
dispassionately and without any bias.
III. The petitioner shall be entitled to cost of
Rs. 10,000/- even when we are dismissing the
writ petition of the petitioner. We only hope
that the official respondents shall not be
wanting in their solemn duty which they have
to discharge and the petitioner would find a
smile on his face at least at the end of his
career and would go home as a happy person.
10. We had expected that the petitioner would be given
all promotions due to him in his own cadre and he would
be be given his due at least before his retirement i.e.
30.6.2002. However, to our dismay, at the time of
arguments of this petition we were informed that the
petitioner was considered for promotion to the higher
post by review DPC but his case for promotion was
rejected. We, therefore, find that the relief given to
the petitioner has in fact been rendered illusory.
Result is that the petitioner does not get even a
single promotion. In these circumstances, we had
summoned the record of the Review DPC which was held on
24.6.2002. A perusal thereof shows that the petitioner
has not been given promotions only because certain
FIRs. are pending against him and certain
charge-sheets are served. However, these FIRs. and
Charge-sheets are of the year 2002. Review DPC was to
consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to
the higher post as on 1974. However, we do not want to
express our final view in the matter as by doing so we
would be exceeding our brief as that is not the issue
before us. If the petitioner is aggrieved, it would be
for him to challenge the action of the respondent by
taking out appropriate proceedings before appropriate
forum. However, this will not come in the way of
respondents considering the case of the petitioner
afresh, if the respondents so desire.
9. No orders as to costs.