WP(C) No.3924/2008 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision : 07th December, 2009 + WP(C) No.3924/2008 V.K. KAUSHAL ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. R.K.Saini, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner joined as Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the Border Roads Organization on 06.08.2001 and as per the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) became eligible to be considered for promotion to the said post on 05.08.2004 since the Rule requires three years’ WP(C) No.3924/2008 Page 2 of 5 regular service in the Grade of Assistant Engineer (Civil) as the eligibility condition for being promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil). 2. There existed two vacancies for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) and to fill up the same the DPC was held on 28.02.2007. 3. The candidature of the petitioner was considered. He was placed at serial No.7 of the select list. There being only 2 vacancies, the same were filled up from the persons higher in merit position. 4. For the next year i.e. the year 2007-08, due to increase in the cadre strength, there existed 21 vacancies to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil). Process was initiated to convene the DPC. Since the rules require consultation process with UPSC, on 03.08.2007, a request was sent to UPSC that a DPC be convened. On 28.09.2007 UPSC responded stating that it would be convenient to hold the DPC meeting on 26.12.2007. 5. For unavoidable circumstances, the DPC Committee meeting could not take place on 26.12.2007 and was WP(C) No.3924/2008 Page 3 of 5 adjourned to be held on 03.01.2008. 6. In the interregnum the petitioner retired on 31.12.2007 and thus his candidature was not considered. 7. The writ petition has been filed praying that directions be issued to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) with effect from 28.02.2007 when the vacancy exist or in the alternative from 26.12.2007 for the reason, persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted. 8. We are afraid no relief can be granted to the petitioner for the reason merely because a person has become eligible to be considered for promotion and on said date a vacancy existed does not mean that he gets an indefensible right to be promoted from the said date. 9. Convening a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting requires administrative approvals to be obtained and in case where Rules require consultative process with UPSC, the said body has to be associated in the promotion process. Obviously, a time lag exists between a vacancy accruing and the same being filled up. 10. It is settled law that no person has a vested right to be WP(C) No.3924/2008 Page 4 of 5 promoted if a vacancy exists in the promotional post, the only right which a person has is to be fairly considered along with the other candidates. 11. Of course, where court holds that there is mala fide in postponing a DPC meeting, in the said eventuality relief can be moulded as was held in a decision reported as (1987) 4 SCC 566 K. Madhavan & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors. 12. No mala fides are pleaded in the instant writ petition. What has happened in the instant case is that the consultation process was commenced well in time with the UPSC. UPSC intimated the convenient date for holding the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee to be 26.12.2007. It was too perilously close to the date 31.12.2007 on which date the petitioner superannuated. The DPC Meeting scheduled for 26.12.2007 was postponed for 03.01.2008, by which date the petitioner had actually superannuated. 13. No Rule has been shown to us which prescribes a cut off date as on which promotions had to be affected. We note that pursuant to the DPC held on 03.01.2008, promotions were affected in February, 2008. WP(C) No.3924/2008 Page 5 of 5 14. Thus, we find no infirmity in the action of the respondents in not granting any promotion to the petitioner. The persons junior to the petitioner were promoted after the petitioner retired from service. 15. The writ petition is dismissed. 16. No costs. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. SURESH KAIT, J. DECEMBER 07, 2009 ‘nks’