DPC Must Be Convened Despite Pending Seniority Challenge Absent Interdiction.

The applicants, Saleem K.K. and Ram Ayodhya Singh, currently serve as Assistant Commandants in Level – 10 of the India Reserve Battalion.

They filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, alleging non-consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Commandants in Level – 11 of the pay matrix, despite the existence of vacancies and specific provisions in the Recruitment Rules.

They became eligible for promotion as of January 1, 2022, and asserted that vacancies arose on September 18, 2017, September 22, 2017, and November 12, 2020.

The respondents contended that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was not convened due to the pendency of O.A. No. 394 of 2021 before the CAT, Mumbai, which challenged the seniority of Assistant Commandants.

Whether the non-convening of the DPC and the non-consideration for promotion of the applicants as Deputy Commandants in Level – 11 of the Pay Matrix from January 1, 2022, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.

Whether the pendency of another Original Application challenging seniority before the CAT, Mumbai, constitutes an interdictory order preventing the convening of the DPC.

The Tribunal applied the principle that the mere pendency of litigation (specifically O.A. No. 394 of 2021 before CAT, Mumbai) challenging seniority does not, in the absence of an explicit interdictory order, prohibit the convening of a Departmental Promotion Committee.

It was noted that the outcome of any DPC would naturally be subject to the final decision in the pending Original Application.

The court found no evidence on record indicating that the CAT, Mumbai Bench, had issued any order explicitly interdicting or preventing the convening of the DPC.

While acknowledging that the outcome of a DPC, if convened, would be subject to the decision in the pending O.A., the Tribunal reasoned that this fact alone did not preclude the DPC from being convened in accordance with existing rules to consider the eligibility of the applicants and fill available vacancies.

Therefore, the respondent's contention for not convening the DPC was deemed unsubstantiated regarding any legal impediment.

It directed the respondents to convene the DPC for the available vacancies as expeditiously as possible and to pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

The O.A. was thus disposed of without costs.