9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1726 - HC - Indian LawsJurisdiction - whether the Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him by granting the relief to the applicant? - Tribunal miserably failed to appreciate that the induction is not a promotion - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error. No interference is called for. The impugned order passed by learned Tribunal on 13.03.2019 was required to be implemented within four months. But, certified copy of the same was applied on 14.03.2019 and this writ petition was filed on 26.07.2019. Within four months from the date of receipt of the impugned order, the petitioner ought to have implemented the same, i.e. before 14th September, 2019. But, without any stay order from this Court and merely filling of the writ petition the authorities sat over the matter without implementing the impugned order. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional Error by the Tribunal 2. Applicability of DOPT Guidelines 3. Consideration of Minor Penalty for Promotion 4. Reconsideration of Promotion to IAS 5. Implementation of Tribunal's Order Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdictional Error by the Tribunal: The petitioner contended that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by granting relief to the applicant, arguing that the induction into IAS is not a promotion and that the guidelines of the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) are not applicable in this case. The petitioner also argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 10854 of 2014. 2. Applicability of DOPT Guidelines: The Tribunal examined whether the minor penalty imposed on the applicant could be considered more than once for denying promotion to IAS. The Tribunal noted that the guidelines at Annexure-A/3, which state that a minor penalty should not be taken into account more than once, were not explained by the respondents as inapplicable. The Tribunal compared these guidelines with the internal guidelines of UPSC, which were not circulated, and emphasized that the selection committee should have the authority to decide the suitability of officers recommended by the State Government for promotion to IAS. 3. Consideration of Minor Penalty for Promotion: The Tribunal referred to the Government of India guidelines under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which state that minor penalties like withholding of increments do not debar consideration for promotion but are taken into account by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in the overall assessment. The Tribunal also cited the DOPT OM dated 28.4.2014, which provides guidelines for assessing officers with penalties and emphasizes that the DPC should make an objective assessment of the suitability of candidates, including those with penalties, on a case-by-case basis. 4. Reconsideration of Promotion to IAS: The Tribunal found that the selection committee had not assessed the applicant's overall performance along with the penalty imposed, as required by the DOPT guidelines. The Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant's case for promotion to IAS for the vacancies of the year 2015 and to similarly reconsider for the years 2016 and 2017 if the applicant is found unsuitable for 2015. If found suitable, the applicant would be entitled to consequential benefits as per law. 5. Implementation of Tribunal's Order: The High Court observed that the Tribunal had not committed any jurisdictional error and that the impugned order was required to be implemented within four months. The High Court noted that the petitioner had not implemented the order within the stipulated time and directed that the order be implemented expeditiously, not later than four months from the date of the High Court's order. Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to implement the Tribunal's order within four months. The High Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the Tribunal's directions and providing urgent certified copies of the order on proper application.
|
