Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS special appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 7.3.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5587/1991 whereby the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners/respondents except the writ petitioners No. 1 and 3 of writ petition No. 5587/1991 along with connected writ petitions were allowed. In the impugned judgment, it has been held as under: The selection exercise undertaken by the D.P.C. for promotion to the respective posts in Grade C, D(I) and D(II) are quashed, and the respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to hold fresh D.P.C. for filling in the posts, as sanctioned by the Registrar, strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Annexure -2, and by taking into consideration, the only relevant material, and in accordance with law. In case, any of the petitioners are selected in this fresh D.P.C., they would be entitled to the emoluments, with retrospective effect. This exercise be undertaken within a period of three months from today. However, the respondents who have been promoted, pursuant to D.P.C. in question, shall be reverted forthwith, and shall not be entitled to any emoluments of the promotional post, at least with effect from today.
(3.) OUT of nine respondents in writ petition No. 5587/1991, seven have preferred this special appeal to challenge the judgment of Single Bench dated 7.3.2006 and learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that after the decision dated 7.3.2006, review DPC was convened and five out of seven appellants have been selected again. According to learned Counsel for the appellants, it has not been considered by the learned Single Judge that the appellants who were promoted in the year 1991 and who were working on the promotional post have been further promoted to the higher post in the years 1997 and 2005 and, therefore, the appellants could not have been considered for promotion to the post of "D(1)" category in next process of promotion in the year 1997 -1998 and 2005 -2006 as they were already promoted and posted on promotional post. The result of upsetting recommendation of DPC of 1991 - 92 will be that the appellants will be deprived from the opportunity to get promotion in the subsequent promotions of the year 1997 -1998 and 2005 -2006. In view of the above, if the result of recommendation of DPC of 1991 -92 is quashed, then the DPC held in the year 1997 -1998 and 2005 -2006 will also have to be set aside. No other point has been argued. It appears that the private respondents preferred writ petitions challenging the recommendation of the DPC which was convened on 20.8.1991 on various grounds inter alia that the DPC proceeded with hot haste so as to fill up the vacancies of 1984 by way of promotion to the post of Branch Manager Grade -D(1) from amongst Clerks, Cashier and Assistant Accountant. It was further alleged that there were only six sanctioned posts of Branch Manager Grade -D(1) and against this, nine posts have been filled up by appointing three persons from the reserved list prepared by the DPC. Not only this but the eligibility zone could have been from S. No. 1 to 15 but the same have been extended to the person whose name appeared at S. No. 19 of the seniority list. It is further alleged that in order to help the appellants for promotion to the post of Branch Manager D -1 category, uncommunicated adverse remarks of 1991 have been relied upon and taken into consideration by the DPC. The above allegations of writ petitioners were found to be having merit and after going through the facts of the case and reasons given in the impugned judgment, we are also of the view that the matter has been thoroughly considered by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge reached to the just and legal conclusion that the selection exercise undertaken by the DPC for promotion to the post in Grade D -1 (which is for consideration in this appeal) was illegal and that has been rightly quashed. The consequential direction given in the impugned judgment have already been complied with and those directions were in consonance with the quashing of the recommendations of the DPC. We do not find any illegality in the said judgment on merits.;