In a recent case before the Delhi High Court, a promotion dispute in the Pharmacology Department was addressed. The petitioner, a staff member in the department, had been seeking promotion since 2005 but faced challenges in the process. Despite being considered eligible by the Departmental Promotion Committee in 2008, the promotion was not granted until 2019. The case sheds light on the importance of following Recruitment Rules and ensuring fair treatment in promotion procedures.
Arguments
- The petitioner claims to be eligible for promotion to the post of STA based on qualifications and experience in the feeder cadre of TA in the Department of Pharmacology.
- The petitioner asserts that as of 01.01.2005, there was a vacant STA post in the Department of Pharmacology where he could have been promoted according to the Recruitment Rules.
- The petitioner points out a crucial Note in the Recruitment Rules specifying promotion as the primary mode of filling STA posts when sanctioned posts are less than two.
- The petitioner alleges that despite his qualifications and experience, he was not considered for promotion until after the rules were amended in 2018, and he only received the promotion in 2019 without any financial benefits.
- The petitioner argues that a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was formed in 2008 to consider his case for promotion, indicating his eligibility at that time.
- The petitioner highlights instances of other TAs being promoted to STA while he was overlooked, alleging unfair treatment.
- The petitioner contends that the discriminatory promotion practices were contrary to the Recruitment Rules in place, which favored promotion as the preferred mode of filling STA posts.
- The petitioner emphasizes that multiple representations were made to the university from 2008 to 2017 requesting consideration for promotion, all of which were allegedly ignored.
- The present writ petition is considered not maintainable and is time-barred since it was filed in 2020 seeking promotion from 01.2005.
- It is argued that promotions to the post cannot be contested after a significant period to avoid affecting the rights of those already promoted.
Analysis
- The petitioner was considered for the post of STA by the DPC on 02.06.2008.
- The post of STA in the Pharmacology Department had been vacant since 01.01.2005 as per the statement of sanctioned and vacant posts.
- Even if Recruitment Rules were not implemented until 2018, the post remained vacant all through.
- The DPC held on 02.06.2008 rejected the promotion of the petitioner solely due to the need for open/direct recruitment as per a notification.
- An advertisement for direct recruitment for the post of STA was issued in 2008, indicating the petitioner was entitled to promotion at that time.
- The lack of suitable candidates through direct recruitment resulted in the post remaining vacant despite efforts to fill it.
- The rejection of promotion for the petitioner was not related to experience, qualification, or eligibility for the promotional post.
- The petitioner approached the Court after a long delay and multiple representations.
- The relief sought does not cause impediment or unsettlement to others.
- The petitioner is considered entitled to promotion to the post of STA from July 2016 based on a circular issued by the respondent.
- The petitioner’s seniority is recognized from July 2016.
- The petitioner’s prior letter informed about the consideration of promotion for laboratory staff, allowing them to seek redressal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Decision
- The petition has been disposed of as the petitioner has received all financial benefits under the MACP scheme.
- No further orders for financial benefits shall be given as the petitioner has already received them.
- The petitioner’s request for financial upgradation under the MACP scheme is considered fulfilled.
Case Title: GIRIDHARI PAL Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. (2024:DHC:3846)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-9072/2020
