High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/19029/2006

S.P. Parasher v. UOI & ORS.

2016-02-18Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Gita Mittal,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice I.S.Mehta2 pages

$~R-10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 19029/2006 Date of decision : 18th February, 2016 S.P. PARASHER ..... Petitioner Through:

None.

versus UOI AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA JUDGMENT (ORAL) GITA MITTAL, J 1.

The writ petition was filed on 18th December, 2006 laying a challenge to Recruitment Rules dated 30th October, 2002 for the appointment to the post of Deputy Director (Administration) in the Rehabilitation Council of India. The petitioner has contended that he was working as a Private Secretary in the Rehabilitation Council of India and has not been considered for the post of Deputy Director (Administration) on deputation basis by the Departmental Promotion Committee which was to be held in the year 2006, though he fulfilled all the eligibility criteria. The writ petitioner has also challenged the Recruitment Rules contending that they deprived the Private Secretary as a Feeder Cadre for direct promotion to the said post whereas W.P.(C) No. 19029/2006 Page 1 of 2

Assistant Secretaries, who are allegedly discharging similar responsibilities, are considered eligible for promotion. 2.

The record of the writ petition shows that interim stay of the recruitment pursuant to the said Rules was not granted to the writ petitioner. CM No.15806/2006 had sought stay of the DPC which was to be held on 19th December, 2006 which was disposed of on 26th November, 2007 directing that anything done by the respondents would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 3.

CM No. 1642/2013 seeking stay of the promotion of Shri Mahesh Chandra, Assistant Secretary, RCI to the said post pursuant to recommendations made by the DPC held by the respondent on 27th February, 2012 was dismissed by the order dated 13th February, 2013 observing that till the writ petitioner succeeds, if at all, appointments have to be made as per the Recruitment Rules. 4.

None appeared for the petitioner when the matter is called out on 13th January, 2016. There is no appearance today as well. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed for default of appearance.

GITA MITTAL, J I.S.MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 18, 2016 kr W.P.(C) No. 19029/2006 Page 2 of 2