Manoj Kunar Jindal vs Rajni Mahajan

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8110 OF 2011

Manoj Kumar Jindal …Appellant Versus

Rajni Mahajan & Ors. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The order passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court of Punjab & Haryana upholding the order passed by

the Single Bench is under challenge before this Court. It is a

case in which the appellant as well as the respondent No.1

are serving in Department of Technical Education and

Signature Not Verified Industrial Training, Punjab. The root cause of the litigation Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra

was an order dated 08.11.2007 vide which the respondent Date: 2023.03.14 17:30:23 IST Reason:

No.1 was reverted from the post of senior lecturer to that of 2

lecturer. The Single Bench of the High Court set aside that

order. The same was upheld in intra­court appeal before the

Division Bench.

2. The respondent No.1 was promoted as senior lecturer

vide Memo dated 16.05.2007. A notice dated 09.09.2007

was served upon the respondent No.1 to show­cause as to

why she should not be revered back to the post of lecturer.

An interim reply was furnished by her on 17.09.2007,

seeking liberty to furnish detailed reply after getting copies

of the relevant documents.

3. Without affording her opportunity to file a detailed

reply, vide impugned order, she was ordered to be reverted

to the post of lecturer. The respondent No.1 as well as the

appellant were working as lecturers. The respondent No.1

was senior to the appellant. The post of senior lecturer

became available on 31.05.2006. A meeting of Departmental

Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 15.03.2007

wherein the respondent No.1 was recommended to be given

promotion. She joined as senior lecturer on 17.03.2007. A

notice was served upon her to show­cause as to why she 3

should not be revered back to the post of lecturer vide order

dated 08.11.2007. Her order of promotion was withdrawn.

It is the aforesaid said order, which was impugned before

the High Court. The reason for reversion was that she did

not have requisite benchmark at the time when the vacancy

became available. However, there is no dispute that when

the candidates were considered for promotion and the DPC

held on 15.03.2007, the respondent No.1 was having the

requisite benchmark and was recommended to be promoted.

The learned Single Bench opined that the ACRs for five years

preceding the date of consideration for promotion were to be

taken into account and not from the date of accrual of the

vacancy.

4. Though, the contention sought to be raised by learned

counsel for the appellant was that it is a case of malafide as

the DPC was postponed on the intervention of the then

Deputy Chief Minister. No doubt such a stand is available

in the written statement filed by the official respondents as

well as the present appellant. However, the fact remains

that the appellant as such had not alleged any malafide. All

what was placed before the Court by the official respondents 4

was the material in terms of the official record. With

reference to the aforesaid fact, what is available on record is

that on a representation made by the respondent No.1 to the

then Deputy Chief Minister, he directed that the DPC be

held after receipt of the ACR for the immediately preceding

year. When the vacancy arose on 31.05.2006, the

respondent No.1 requested that the ACR for the year 2005­

06 should also be part of the record before the DPC when

the matter regarding promotion is considered.

5. We are not finally opining on the issue as to whether

the DPC should have been postponed or not; the ACRs only

up to the year the vacancy arose should have been

considered or it should be up to the date of holding of DPC.

But the fact remains that the respondent no.1 was promoted

way back in the year 2007. More than 15 years have

elapsed. She was otherwise also senior to the appellant in

the cadre of lecturers and there may have been further

promotions of both the parties as well as in the department

where they are working. Any order passed at this stage may

affect number of persons and further may result in

unsettling many positions which have already settled with 5

the lapse of time. Hence, we do not find that a case is made

for interference by this Court.

6. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

……………………………J. [Abhay S. Oka]

..…………….……………J. [Rajesh Bindal] New Delhi 14.03.2023