* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order : 17th February, 2011
+ LPA No.118/2009
NATIONAL BOOK TRUST ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.GVR Choudhary and
Mr.A.Chandra Shekhar, Advocates
versus
UMA BANSAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Birja Mahaptra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)
1. The issue of the roster point vacancy being debated
in the appeal does not even arise for consideration and we
proceed to note the relevant facts.
2. The respondent had an issue pertaining to the
adverse entries contained in her ACR for the year 2003-04
against which she had filed a representation which was
allowed on 17.11.2005 and prior thereto a DPC met to consider
the departmental candidates working as Assistant Editors for
promotion to the post of Editor and selected one Smt. Sushma
Sonak, junior to the respondent. On 02.11.2005 Sushma
LPA 118/2009 Page 1 of 4
Sonak was issued the letter of promotion. This happened 15
days prior to respondent’s representation against adverse
entry in her ACR for the year 2003-04 being allowed.
3. Sushma Sonak resigned on 24.08.2007 and claiming
that the resultant vacancy, on account of the roster being
maintained, accrued to the direct recruitment quota the
appellant sought to fill up the vacancy by inviting applications
from eligible candidates.
4. The respondent filed a writ petition being
WP(C)No.1829/2008 praying that the vacancy in question
which arose when Sushma Sonak resigned, since she was a
promotee, the resultant vacancy had to be filled up treating
the same to be in the promotee quota.
5. The appellant opposed the writ petition pleading that
as per the Recruitment Rule, 4 posts of Editor’s existed; 2 out
of which were assigned to the direct recruit quota and the
remaining 2 to the promotee quota. It was pleaded that the
appellants were maintaining a roster chart and as per the
same irrespective of source of recruitment of the Editor who
retired, the appellant was filling the vacancies, alternating
between promotee and a direct recruit.
6. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 01.09.2008
the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the
respondent holding that since out of the 4 posts of Editor, 2
were meant by direct recruits, the vacancy in question caused
on account of the resignation of Sushma Sonak had to be filled
LPA 118/2009 Page 2 of 4
up by promotion, since 2 direct recruits were working as
Editors.
7. The appellants urge that the learned Single Judge
ignored that roster vacancy chart maintained by the appellants
requiring one vacancy to be filled by promotion and the next
by direct recruitment followed by promotion and then direct
recruitment and so on. As per the appellants it was not
maintaining any schedule of rota:quota.
8. We are of the opinion that the issue is not of
rota:quota or of roster point vacancy chart, but the entitlement
of the respondent to have a review DPC constituted when the
DPC in which Sushma Sonak was selected as a promotee
candidate for the reason said DPC considered the ACR of the
respondent containing adverse remarks against which
respondent’s representation was pending, and as noted
hereinabove, which representation was finally accepted and
adverse entries in the ACR for the year 2003-04 were set
aside. To put it pithily, respondent’s entitlement had to be
satisfied by convening a review DPC, for the reason, even if
Sushma Sonak had not resigned this ought to have been done.
In other words, qua the respondent, the clock has to be put
back for the vacancy which got filled when Sushma Sonak was
promoted.
9. But we issue no direction, for the reason, though
pertaining to a lien vacancy in which one Sh.H.Nagarajappa
was promoted as an Editor by treating the lien vacancy as
falling in the promotee quota, at the DPC held on 12.11.2009,
LPA 118/2009 Page 3 of 4
presided over by Professor Bipan Chandra, Chairman, NBT;
Ms.Nuzhat Hassan, Director, CBT; Dr.Bichar Dass; Ex. Director
Central Translation Bureau; Dr.Suresh Chand, Special Officer,
MHRD; Sh.Amar Mudi, Joint Director, NBT; the candidature of
the respondent was considered and it was found that the
respondent could not achieve the Bench mark prescribed. This
selection has not been questioned by the respondent.
10. It is apparent that no useful purpose would be served
in issuing any mandamus to consider the candidature of the
respondent as a promotee candidate with respect to the
vacancy in question, for the simple reason, we have material
on record that the respondent has not achieved the requisite
Bench Mark and this material is the DPC as noted above. Even
if we direct a review DPC to be held, it would be an idle
formality, since the result is known.
11. The appeal stands disposed of relieving the appellant
of the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge and as a
consequence we dispose of the appeal dismissing the writ
petition filed by the respondent.
12. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SURESH KAIT)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 17, 2011
mr
LPA 118/2009 Page 4 of 4