CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2806 OF 2000 VIJAI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA, SON OF LATE SHANKAR SAHAY SRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF 508/A, KARZON ROAD HOSTEL, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI. ------------------------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN, MANDI HOUSE, DOORDARSHAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI ---------------------------------Respondents For The Petitioner :Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath , Sr. Advocate For The Respondents :Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate, CGC P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL S.K. Katriar, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.01.2000, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. no. 530 of 1993 ( V.S. Srivastava versus The Union of India & Ors), whereby the original application preferred by the present petitioner for the following reliefs has been rejected: (i) Promotion made against 1990 vacancies be quashed as they have been made together with the vacancies of 1991 and 1992 through one list. (ii) The applicant be considered for promotion under old rules for the vacancies of 1990 with all consequential benefits (iii) The rules whereby promotion in the Indian Broadcasting Services in the Junior Administrative Cadre which has excluded the provision for protection of the claims of direct recruits be quashed. (iv) Fresh selection may be ordered to be made from 1990 vacancies in 2 accordance with the old rules for 1990 (v) Promotions for 1991 and 1992 may be made after deleting the unreasonable criteria and eligibility conditions. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner served the All India Radio on a junior position from 1975 to 31.7.1988, and not of any relevance in the present context. In view of the selection process conducted by the Union Public Service Commission, he was directly appointed as Station Director (OG) on probation on 1.8.1988. He successfully completed the probation period on 31.7.1989, vide order dated 3.1.1990 (Annexure-2). The issues relating to the terms and conditions of service of the category of the petitioner was earlier governed by All India Radio (Group A) Recruitment Rules, 1963, and was in force up to 4.11.1990. The same has been replaced by Indian Broadcasting Programme Service Rules 1990, w.e.f. 5.11.1990. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) did not meet during the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. It met in the year 1993, and considered all the eligible candidates including the petitioner as per the eligibility criteria under 1990 Rules. In view of the provision of law that an employee of the category of the petitioner, namely, a direct recruit, would become eligible for consideration for the selection grade in question after completing five years commencing from 1.8.1988. In other words, he could not be considered for the selection grade till 31.7.1993, because he entered the zone of consideration on 1.8.1888. The DPC met in 1993, and considered 3 the cases of petitioner, and other persons who were promotees. The petitioner was not found fit, and was denied the benefit of selection grade. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring the aforesaid O.A. no. 530 of 1993, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the DPC had to meet at an interval of one year. The list had to be prepared year- wise even if DPC was convened after a lapse of a few years, which has not been done in the present case, and instead a combined list for a number of years has been prepared, which is impermissible in law. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar versus Union of India, reported in 1999 (3) P.L.J.R. 255. One of us (S.K. Katriar, J) had the occasion to apply the same in the case of Sunil Kumar Sinha versus The State of Bihar, reported in 2009 (1) P.L.J.R. 744. He further submits that the vacancies which had occurred till November 1990, had to be considered as per the procedure prescribed under the old Rules. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned action. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is evident that the petitioner joined the services of the Union of India on 1.8.1988. Under the old Rules, he had to put in five 4 years of service to acquire the eligibility for consideration of his case for grant of selection grade. The petitioner became eligible, and entered the zone of consideration, on 1.8.1993. Therefore, there was no occasion to consider his case till 1.8.1993. This concludes the first aspect of the matter. 6. The DPC met in 1993. The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner, along with others which included some of the promotees, were together considered by the DPC because all of them were within the zone of consideration. It appears that the DPC did not find the petitioner fit for grant of the benefit of selection grade. The recommendations of the DPC were duly accepted by the respondent authorities, were acted upon, and have attained finality. We have not been called upon to examine the validity of the proceedings of the DPC. The same is indeed beyond the frame of the present original application. Therefore, we do not find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that, when the DPC met in 1993, his case ought to have been considered as per the old Rules. We are unable to accede to the submission for the reason, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, namely, he could not have been considered as per the old Rules because he was ineligible for consideration so long the old Rules were in force. The contention is rejected. 7. We must consider the division Bench judgment of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 Issues relating to Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, came up for consideration of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India, (1999) 3 P.L.J.R. 255. The Selection Committee constituted under the Regulation prepared a consolidated list for the vacancies occurring during the period of three years as it could not meet as per Regulation during this period. The Regulation requires the committee to meet at intervals not exceeding one year and prepare the select list. The Division Bench held that if it meets after a gap of several years, it has to prepare separate list for each year, keeping in view the number of vacancies of that year after considering the State Civil Service Officers who were eligible and fell within the zone of consideration for selection in that year. Hence the consolidated list was illegal. It was further observed that holding of committee meeting each year is intimately connected with and is an integral part of the scheme envisaged by the Regulations. If for any reason, the selection committee is not able to meet each year, it will certainly give rise to complications. That, however, does not mean that the Regulations cannot be worked. The amendment to Regulation 7(4) does not, in any manner, affect the provisions which provide for the preparation of a select list year-wise. Since the year-wise list is sought to be prepared after a lapse of several years, some minor deviations have to be permitted of necessity, so that the regulations are substantially complied with. The Division Bench, 6 therefore, concluded that amendment to Regulation 7(4) does not touch the core question regarding preparation of the select list for each year. The Judgment in Ashok Kumar evidently dealt with a different situation, and is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. In the result, we do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Kishore K. Mandal, J. I agree. Patna High Court 31st March, 2010 NAFR/pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )