/ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA NO. 150 OF 2008 Date of Decision: 16-07-2008 D.RAJENDRA PRASAD Appellant Through Mr. Sanjayjain & Mr. Dharmesh Kumar, Advocates versus UOI & ANR. .....Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Saxena, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? REKHA SHARMA. I. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional District Judge Shri Rajiv Mehra, dated January 22, 2008 whereby the learned Judge affirmed the judgment of Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, dated February 23, 2007 who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction claiming relief of promotion to the post of Shift Engineer with effect from June 22, 1981 with all allied benefits available to the reserved quota for SC/ST posts and also to restrain the defendants from transferring him from the Production Department to the Technical Services (Safety Department). The appellant belongs to a Scheduled Caste community of Andhra Pradesh, known as 'Mala' and was appointed as Engineer RSA No; 150 of 2008 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:26.07.2024 17:32:56 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Trainee (Cliemical) in National Fertilizers Limited on November 27, 1976. He was transferred to Panipat plant till his regular appointment as Assistant Shift Engineer. He was confirmed on the post of Assistant Shift Engineer with effect from September 8, 1978 and was promoted as Shift Engineer with effect from January 31, 1983. 1 The appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the allegation that prior to his promotion as Shift Engineer with effect from January 31, 1983, two DPCs were held; one on June 22, 1981; and the other on December 2, 1981 and even though, he was eligible for promotion as Shift Engineer in the Scheduled Caste quota, he was not promoted by the Departmental Promotion Committees on account of their bias against a Scheduled Caste candidate. He, therefore, sought a declaration that he was fit for promotion with effect from January, 1981 and also sought a restraint order against the defendants from transferring him from the Production Department to the Technical Services (Safety Department) which also he alleged was on account of bias of the defendants against a Scheduled Caste candidate. The main grievance of appellant is that the earlier two DPCs which were held in June, 1981 and December, 1981 were not properly constituted inasmuch no member from the Scheduled Caste community was kept in the DPCs and, therefore, proceedings and the selection made by those DPCs stood vitiated. Admittedly, no challenge to the constitution of the two Departmental Promotion Committees was made by the appellant before he appeared in the interviews or immediately thereafter. It is only after he was promoted in the DPC held on August 23, 1982 that he RSA No. 150 of2008 , Page 2 of 3 3> raised the challenge to the constitution of the DPCs and sought declaration that he should have been treated as promoted with effect from June, 1981. As the appellant had taken his chance before the DPCs, he cannot be allowed to raise an objection with regard to the constitution of those DPCs after he had participated in the selection process. The learned trial judge has examined this aspect of the matter and has rightly found the objection of the appellant to be without merit. The appellant has also contended that the members of the earlier two DPCs were biased against Scheduled Caste candidates and that is why he was not selected. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned trial judge and on this score also he has found the allegation to be without merit. It has been held that the first DPC considered 33 candidates out of which 5 were promoted and from amongst them, Shri M.P.Singh, was a Scheduled Caste candidate. The said Shri M.P.Singh was senior to the appellant. Similarly, the second DPC which was held in December, 1981 considered 35 candidates, out of which 10 were prompted including one Shri P.B.Asai who was a Scheduled Tribe candidate. In this view of the matter, the objection that the members of the DPC were harbouring some kind of bias against SC/ST candidates has been correctly held to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, Ifind no merit in the appeal. No question of law has been raised much less any substantial question of law. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and I do so. REKHA SHARMA, J. JULY 16, 2008 si RSA No. 150 of2008 Page 3 of 3