The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Shilpi Agarwal & Anr. vs UOI & Ors. consisting of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held that there can never be a mechanical manner of upgradation, de hors the Recruitment Rules and other relevant provisions governing promotions in service, solely based on completion of several years of service for the officers in Central Health Services.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioners filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the common Judgment and Order of the Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide which the Petitioners’ prayer for quashing/ modifying Order Nos. A-32012/02/2006-CHS.III and 32012/2/2006-CHS.III along with the consequential promotions was dismissed. Further, their prayer for directing Respondent No. 1 & 2 therein to promote the Petitioners to the post/ grade of Professor in the Central Health Services (“CHS”) was also rejected.
The Petitioners were selected by the Union Public Services Commission (“UPSC”) and appointed in the Ministry of Health and Union Family Welfare as Assistant Professor (Specialist Grade II – Junior Scale) of the Teaching Sub Cadre. An Assistant Professor with 2 years of regular service in the grade becomes eligible for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. Petitioners 1 and 2 were promoted to the Post of Associate Professor in 2001 and 2002 respectively.The Central Health Services Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1996”) provide for promotion to the next higher post, i.e., Specialist Grade-I, Professor, which was to be filled 100% by promotion on a non-selection basis without linkage to the vacancies, failing which, by Direct Recruitment. They further provide that an Associate Professor with 6 years of regular service in the grade/8 years combined regular service in the grades of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor was eligible to be promoted to Specialist Grade-I, Professor. As per Office Memorandum the selection procedure to be followed require at least two “Very Good” grades in the person’s last 5 ACRs. Further, as per the guidelines issued by the DoP&T, the benchmark for promotion to the post of Professor – which was equivalent to a Non-Functional Selection Grade, provided that an officer’s overall performance should be good with at least two “Very Good” gradings during the last five years (not insisted upon SC/ ST Officers).
Procedural History:
The Government of India constituted a High-Power Committee called Tikku Committee for considering the service conditions of doctors. Based upon that Committee’s Report, the distinction between Non-Functional Selection Grade and Functional Grade was eliminated w.e.f. 01.12.1991. Further, when the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission were brought to the force, it recommended the constitution of a Dynamic Assured Career Profession Scheme (“DACP”) for officers of the Central Health Services. Respondent No. 1 introduced that Scheme for officers of the Central Health Services. Under the same, promotion to the post of Professor required completion of 4 years of regular service as Associate Professor, subject to fulfilling the prescribed benchmark based upon the ACRs. The Petitioners were considered in the years 2006 and 2007 for promotion, however, they were not found fit for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (“DPC”) since they had only one “Very Good” ACR grading during the last 5 years.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench, upon perusing the documents and counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, noted that upon a subsequent DPC meet the Petitioners were found fit for promotion. Hence, they were promoted to the post of Professors in the Teaching Sub-Cadre of CHS. The Petitioners, before their promotion being declared in terms of aforesaid Order, had come before the Ld. CAT by filing Original Applications (OA), and the Tribunal has dismissed the said OAs.
It perused Paragraph 3 of the DACP Scheme and noted that promotions were to be made without linkage to vacancies. Other conditions were to be governed by provisions of CHS Rules 1996 as amended from time to time, and instructions issued by the DoP&T. It was a uniform criterion that was made applicable to all employees, including the Petitioners. Since the Petitioners did not have two “Very Good” gradings in their ACRs during the last five years of their service, the Petitioners had not been promoted to the next higher post.
It opined that:
“Once the cases of the Petitioners were considered as per the DACP Scheme, and the Petitioners were not able to fulfil the eligibility criterion for promotion, the question of grant of relief to the Petitioners does not arise…There can never be a mechanical manner of upgradation, de hors the Recruitment Rules and other relevant provisions governing promotions in service, solely based on completion of several years of service.”
The decision of the Court:
The Bench did not find any reason to grant relief to the Petitioners and this petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: Dr. Shilpi Agarwal & Anr. vs UOI & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) 7570/2008
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Hon’ble Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocates for Petitioners: Advs. Mr. V. K. Garg, Mr. Sagar Saxena, Mr. K. S. Rekhi, Mr. Parv Garg, Mr. Pawas Kulshrestha and Mr. Parmeet Singh.
Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Ms. Priya Singh, Dr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, Mr. Sarthak Chiller, and Mr. Rohit Lohav
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments