Case: Union of India &amp; Others Vs. N.C. Murali &amp; Others

3. The respondents were employed as Geophysicists in Geological Survey of India, a subordinate Department of Ministry of Mines. The post of Assistant Geophysicists was aB post and next grade in the said cadre is the post of Geophysicists (Jr.). The promotion of Assistant Geophysicists was by two modes i.e., by direct recruitment and by promotion through UPSC with ratio of 1:1. There were large number of posts of Geophysicists (Jr.) lying vacant from 1984 till 1998 totalling 31 in number. Due to various reasons no DPC could take place for effecting the promotions in theA post. Subsequently, the DPC met and promotions were effected w.e.f., 2001. The respondents and various intervenors were considered and promotion orders were issued. Before the aforesaid promotion could take place, the respondents had filed O.A. No. 119 of 2000 in the CAT in January, 2001 praying for direction to the Ministry of Finance to revalidate and fill up the vacancies of the post of Geophysicists and further to convert the Direct Recruits quota into the DPC quota as one time measure and fill the existing posts. During the pendency of the O.A., the DPC was convened on 30.10.2001. The Tribunal decided the matter ultimately vide its order dated 13.11.2003. The Tribunal noticed the fact that DPC had been held. The Tribunal, however, did not accept the prayer of the applicants with regard to the conversion of direct recruitment quota. However, the Tribunal to meet the ends of justice directed that the applicants be adjusted against the unfilled vacancies of respective years when the DPC was not held. The Tribunal directed proforma promotion to the Geophysicists according to the seniority and eligibility with retrospective effect against the vacancies of the respective years when they qualified for those posts4. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Tribunal, the Union of India had filed the writ petition before the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court against which this appeal has been preferred.

Court's reasoning:
9. From the materials brought on the record it is clear that there are no statutory rules governing the promotion at the relevant time. It is although desirable that the DPC should be convened at regular intervals to draw panels which could be utilized for making promotions against the vacancies. But neither any rules nor any circular have been referred to by which it can be held that the promotions whenever to be effected should be effected w.e.f. the date of the vacancy. The Circular dated 10.4.1989, paragraphs 3.1 and 6.4.1 as reproduced above also do not indicate that in case DPC is not held by any reason in a year, promotions on the basis of subsequent DPC has to be retrospectively13. In view of the law laid down in thed cases, it is clear that unless there is specific rule entitling the applicants to receive promotion from the date of occurrence of vacancy, the right of promotion does not crystallize on the date of occurrence of vacancy and the promotion is to extended on the date when it is actually effected14. However, there may be cases when the promotions have to be retrospectively made with or without financial benefits. A well known example of giving retrospective promotion is cases of sealed cover procedure when the recommendations are kept in sealed cover procedure awaiting the outcome of disciplinary proceedings. There may be other circumstances in which a person is entitled to be given the benefit of retrospective promotion including a case where statutory rules mandates effecting promotion by particular time or on occurrence of vacancy. The present is a case where admittedly DPC was not held from 1984 till October, 2001, although various reasons have been given by the appellants for not holding DPC, it is not necessary for us for the purpose of this case to enter into such reasons to find out as to whether there is any justification for not holding the DPC for the relevant years. Suffice it to say the promotions having been effected after the DPC was held and those who were entitled have been given promotions, the litigation initiated by the respondents before the Tribunal should have been closed. The directions of the Tribunal to give retrospective pro forma promotion and retrospective seniority w.e.f the date of vacancy when they were eligible, ought not to have been issued.