[ad_1]
The Delhi High Court has mentioned that promotion below the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme of Central Health Services can’t be made in a mechanical method with out contemplating the worker’s grading within the Annual Confidential Report (ACR).
The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad mentioned there might be no upgradation of publish solely on foundation of the variety of years of service accomplished by the worker, de hors the Recruitment Rules and different provisions governing promotion in providers.
The court docket handed the judgement on a petition difficult a call handed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners are members of the Central Health Services, who upon their choice by the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) had been appointed within the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare within the Grade of Assistant Professor (Teaching Sub-Cadre), within the Department of Pathology, Lady Hardinge Medical College. They had been promoted to the Post of Associate Professor in 2001 and 2002.
In 2006 and 2007, the petitioners together with different Associate Professors had been thought-about by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to the publish of Professors below the DACP Scheme. In an order handed by the DPC, the petitioners’ names had been unnoticed within the checklist of Associate Professors who had been promoted to the publish of Professor.
The petitioners challenged this order earlier than CAT, which dismissed their functions in 2008. They then approached the excessive court docket the identical 12 months.
The division bench mentioned the order handed by Tribunal makes it very clear that the case of the petitioners had been thought-about for promotion in 2006 and 2007 below the DACP Scheme however they didn’t have two “Very Good” gradings of their ACRs throughout the previous final 5 years of their service and thus weren’t promoted.
The court docket additionally famous that the petitioners had been as soon as once more thought-about for promotion, and so they had been discovered match by the DPC. Thus, within the 12 months 2008, they had been promoted to the publish of Professors as that they had met the eligibility standards.
Observing that DACP Scheme makes it very clear that promotions are to be made with out linkage to vacancies, the court docket mentioned different situations for effectuating promotions are to be ruled by provisions of CHS Rules 1996 – as amended once in a while, and directions issued by the DoP&T.
“It was the aforesaid criterion which was required to be considered for the purpose of promotion and considering suitability of an employee for the same under the DACP Scheme. It was a uniform criterion which was made applicable to all employees, including the Petitioners. Since the Petitioners did not have two “Very Good” gradings in their ACRs during the last five years of their service, the Petitioners had not been promoted to the next higher post,” mentioned the bench.
The court docket noticed that when the instances of the petitioners had been thought-about as per the DACP Scheme, and so they weren’t in a position to fulfill the eligibility criterion for promotion, the query of grant of reduction to the Petitioners doesn’t come up.
“This Court is not able to find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CAT. By no stretch of imagination can it be construed that under the DACP Scheme, an employee/ Associate Professor is entitled to be upgraded to the post of a Professor irrespective of his/her grading in the ACR, in a mechanical manner. There can never be a mechanical manner of upgradation, de hors the Recruitment Rules and other relevant provisions governing promotions in service, solely on the basis of completion of number of years of service,” it added.
Case Title: Dr. Shilpi Agarwal & Anr. versus UOI & Ors.
Dated: 06.01.2022 (Delhi High Court)
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. V. Ok. Garg, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sagar Saxena, Mr. Ok. S. Rekhi, Mr. Parv Garg, Mr. Pawas Kulshrestha and Mr. Parmeet Singh, Advocates
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms. Priya Singh, Advocate for Respondent/ UOI. Dr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, Mr. Sarthak Chiller and Mr. Rohit Lohav, Advocates for Respondent No.5.
[adinserter block=”4″]
[ad_2]
Source link