JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.
(1) The petitioners in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seek a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to hold meeting of the departmental promotion committee to consider their cases for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers and, if found suitable, to promote them to that post prior to the promotion of respondents 4 to 13. For this prayer the petitioners rely on rule 11 (a)(ii) of the relevant recruitment rules to the post of Assistant Engineers. Petitioners number 5 and are diploma holders in electrical engineering and are presently holding the post of Suprintendent (Tech) in the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, the second respondent. The third respondent is the Additional General Manager (Admn.) of D.E.S.U. Respondents 4 to13 are holding degrees in electrical engineering and have since been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, it is alleged, under interim orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 4062/92 filed by these respondents 4 to 13.
(2) As to how the post of Assistant Engineer is to be filled up by promotion, Rule 11 of the recruitment rules is relevant which is as under :-
(I)”Superintendent (Technical) with 3 yrs, regular service in the grade for those possessing degree in Electrical/MechanicalEngineering from a recognised university or equivalent and 7years regular service in the grade for those possessing Diplomain Electrical/Mechanical Engineering of recognised Universityor equivalent.
(II)Failing (i) above. Superintendent (Tech) with 5 yrs. combinedregular service in the grade of Superintendent (Tech) andInspector for those possessing degree in Electrical/MechanicalEngineering of a recognised University or equivalent or 10 yrs.combined regular service in the grade for those possessingdiploma in Electrical/Mechanical Engineering from a recognisedUniversity or equivalent.”
(3) To understand contention of the petitioners we feel it will beappropriate to set cut our order dated 26/02/1993 made in C.W.P.No. 4062/92″C.W. No. 4062/92:Rule.C.M. No. 7472/92:The petitioners numbering nine (and one more in C.W. No.4348/92) were working as Inspector (Electrical) and they were pro-moted to the post of Superintendent (Technical) on 29-8-1989 onthe officiating basis after they were selected by regular D.P.C.Their services were regularised in these posts with effect from30-3-1991. The next promotional post is that of Assistant Engineerand as per recruitment rules there has to be three years regularservice in the feeder grade. The contention raised is that theofficiating period be also treated as regular service and the petitioners are thus entitled to promotion to the post of AssistantEngineer vacancies being existing there. Desu has, however, contended to the contrary with reference to office Memorandum therelevant portion of which is to be following effect :-
“16.5If the proceedings of the D.P.C. for promotion containfindings in sealed envelop in respect of persons under suspension oragainst whom departmental proceedings are pending, the vacancythat would have gone to the officer, if his name had been includedin the panel, should be filled on an officiating basis by the next person in the approval list. After termination of the suspension/disciplinary proceedings against him. If it was held that suspension waswholly unjustified and the officer was completely exonerated in thedisciplinary proceedings and if the sealed envelope contains recommendation in his favor, then he should be promoted to the higherpost, if necessary by reverting the junior most officiating person.Where, however, the post which could have gone to the officer, butfor his suspension if the departmental proceedings ceases to existbefore the conclusion of the departmental proceedings, he can onlybe promoted to the first vacancy that may be available in future andif the officer concerned is found fit in the higher grade, as if he hadbeen promoted in accordance with his position in the select list/panel.”
BYan interim order we had directed that the petitioners be alsoconsidered by D.P.C.for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineerthough their results would not be declared. Apprehension expressedby Mr. Shekhar is that the persons against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending and whose results are kept in sealed coverand when they are exonerated, they will have to take up the positions of Assistant Engineer now being occupied by the petitioners,if they are so promoted by interim orders of this Court. In thecircumstances, therefore, we accordingly direct that the results ofthe D.P.C. in respect of the petitioners be declared and if foundeligible they may be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer subject to the further orders of this Court. They will hold on to thoseposts only till their seniors against whom disciplinary proceedingsare pending are exonerated or otherwise become entitled to the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. However, we make itclear that in case any vacancy still remains in the post of AssistantEngineer, the petitioners as per their inter se seniority shall continueto occupy that post till further orders of this Court.”
The petitioners now say that the aforesaid order works to their prejudice.They filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against this orderand the Supreme Court passed the following order :- “WEhave heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and we are ofthe opinion that the apprehension placed before us is misplaced.The impugned order does not convey that even senior who areeligible for promotion under the rules should be overlooked andjuniors should be promoted. That is not the purport of the impugned order. Therefore, if any promotion is given disregarding theclaim of any senior who satisfies the eligibility criteria for promotion, he or she will be at liberty to make a grievance before theappropriate forums. No order on the application for impleadmentin view of .the above clarification. The petition will stand disposedof accordingly.”
(4) The main question in the first writ petition was if the period forwhich the petitioners worked on officiating post could be counted towardstheir regular service or not. They had claimed they were promoted to thepost of Assistant Engineer though on officiating basis but after regular D.P.C.I he petitioners now before us say that they were promoted as Superintendent(Technical) on officiating basis in 1989 and on regular basis in 1991. Thenas per rules these respondents were entitled to be promoted as Assistant Engineers after completing 3 years in regular service, i.e., in 1994. The petitioners now contend that since para (i) would not be applicable, respondentsI to 2 had to fall back upon para (ii) of rule 11 as stated above. They sayif para (ii) is applied then they would have completed 10 years of combinedregular service in the grabes of Inspector and Superintendent (Technical)much before the respondents 4 to 13 would have dons. They, therefore,contend that they should have been promoted earlier to the post of Assistant Engineers than the respondents 4, 13. Prima facie we are of the opinion thatthe stand taken by the petitioners is not correct. For one thing, as pointedout by the respondents, the petitioners were promoted to the post ofSuperintendent (technical) on temporary basis and not on regular basis.On the other hand, respondents 4 to 13 who are working as Superintendent(Technical) on officiating basis were promoted on regular basis by officeorder dated 17/07/1991. This was done when certain posts of Inspector(Electrical) were upgraded. That would not, therefore, mean that when therespondents 3 to 14 were working on officiating basis they were not doing soagainst any regular post. In any case the question raised by the petitionersneed consideration. We, therefore, issue rule and direct that this petition beheard along with C.W.P. No. 4062/92.
(5) Having regard to all the relevant circumstances we are of theopinion that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief at this stage. C.Ms., therefore, are dismissed. Petition dismissed