NEERAJ KUMAR RANJAN AND ORS vs UOI AND ORS

2023-12-01 Information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: December 01, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 7421/2015

NEERAJ KUMAR RANJAN AND ORS.
….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. and
Mr. Nikunj Arora, Adv.
versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi, Sr. PC with
Mr. Gurjas Narula, Adv. for UOI with Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, for CRPF

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

REVIEW PET. 272/2019
1. This review petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking review of order dated February 19, 2019, on the ground that the other eight petitioners other than petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 were denied the benefit as granted to the said three petitioners. When the review petition was listed before the Court on July 12, 2019, this Court had passed the following order:-
CM Appl. No. 30873/2019 (delay)
1. For the reason stated in the application, the delay of 70 days in filing the Review Petition is condoned. The application is disposed of.
Review Petition No. 272/2019
2. There are two issues raised in the review petition. One is that in para 27 of the judgment dated 19th February, 2019 this Court noted the submission of the Respondents that pursuant to the DPC held on 8th November, 2011 only three of the Petitioners i.e. Petitioners 2, 3 & 4 were promoted as there were only three vacancies available. The Review Petitioners are contesting this statement on the ground that the signal dated 13th January, 2012 issued subsequently promoted as many as 55 persons and therefore there were many more vacancies than just three.
3. The second ground is that in para 26 this Court has noted that ten of the eleven Petitioners have cleared the exam and were declared pass on 13th August, 2010 even before the DPC was held on 8th November, 2011. It is accordingly submitted that their seniority shall have to be reckoned along with the original batch to which they belonged since in any event they have cleared their exam prior to the date of the DPC.
4. On both the above issues, learned counsel for Respondent seeks time for instructions.
5. List on 27th September, 2019.

2. From the above, it is noted that the grounds on which the petitioners have sought the review of the judgment dated February 19, 2019, are that there were more vacancies than just three and ten of the eleven petitioners have cleared the exam and were declared passed/successful on August 13, 2010, even before the DPC which was held on November 08, 2011. Accordingly, the seniority has to be reckoned along with the original batch to which they belonged, since they have cleared their exam prior to the DPC.
3. Mr. Ankur Chhibber would also submit that, as per the additional affidavit filed by the respondents there were around 140 vacancies and as such the other petitioners (other than petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4) would also be entitled to the same benefit as has been granted to the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4.
4. Mr. Vijay Joshi, though do not contest the number of vacancies existing, that is 140, his only submission is that the petitioners were not meeting the gradation position and as such would not be entitled to the relief. This submission of Mr. Joshi is contested by Mr. Chibber by stating that the promotions of the batch were made between the gradation position 698 and 1015 and the petitioners seniority in the gradation list being 750, 762, 763, 795, 796, 878, 880, the petitioners cannot be denied the promotion. Moreover, the other petitioners who were given promotion were at 690, 743 and 747 of the gradation list. This submission of Mr. Chibber is appealing. The only ground on which this Court had denied the benefit to the other eight petitioners was that there were only three vacancies existing / available which according to us is factually an incorrect finding in view of the stand of the respondents. We are of the view that the other petitioners are also entitled to be promoted to AC from the batch / DPC in which the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 were promoted.
5. The order dated February 19, 2019, is reviewed. It is held that the petitioners (other than 2, 3 and 4) shall also be entitled to promotion in the DPC held on November 08, 2011. Their seniority would be adjusted from the date of their respective promotion in the rank. The review petition is disposed of. No costs.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

SANJEEV NARULA, J
DECEMBER 1, 2023/ds

W.P.(C)7421/2015 Page 4