GAJENDRA KUMAR KESARI vs GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA on 1 October 2026

ORDER

PER R.S. DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant praying for the following relief(s):- “8.1 To quash and set aside the online Advertisement No.13/2023 so far as the recruitment to the post of Director General, at Serial No.8 of the Advertisement is concerned; 8.2 To direct the respondents to immediately held the Review Departmental Promotion Committee on 16/01/2020 as was Scheduled as per Annexure- C for promotion to the post of Additional Director General and give notional promotion to the applicant with effect from 16.01.2020 thereafter, to hold regular Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Director General. 8.3 Pending Review Departmental Promotion Committee for Additional Director General and Regular Departmental Promotion Committee for Director General, if so required, the short term recruitment process may be resorted to for a limited/specific period of time, or the department may consider the applicant, Senior most Additional Director General as on 01.09.2023 to hold the post of Director General-in-charge for a limited period till the Review Departmental Promotion Committee and Regular Departmental Promotion Committee are held and complete. 8.4 Any other relief(s) that the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case would be entitled to for the ends of justice.”

2. The facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that he was promoted to the post of Additional Director General (Geology) in the Geological Survey of India on 22.06.2022, though he was eligible to be promoted to the said post on 01.04.2019 in terms of the Recruitment Rules governing the field. Due to the negligence of the concerned authorities in holding the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the post of Additional Director General (Geology) in time, there was

SOURABH KUMAR

delay of about 3 years in promoting the applicant to the post of Additional Director General (Geology). The Department of GSI has not convened the DPC for the vacant post of Additional Director General (Geology) when the vacancy arose in the year 2020. Had the Departmental Promotion Committee been held in stipulated time, the applicant would have completed 2 years of qualifying service by the mid of the year 2022 so as to be eligible for promotion to the post of Director General, Geological Survey of India. The delay in conducting the DPC by the Department is deliberate, arbitrary and malafide to deny the applicant further promotion to the rank of Director General. It is further discernible from records that the Department in arbitrary exercise of power has issued the impugned Advertisement dated 08.07.2022 (ANNEXURE-A) inviting the online application for the Direct Recruitment to the post of Director General in violation of the Recruitment Rules which is holding the field. Therefore, the impugned Advertisement dated 08.07.2022 is malice in law. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, instant application is filed praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned Advertisement dated 08.07.2022 by Respondent No. 3 as the same is arbitrary and being dehors the Recruitment Rules to secure the ends of justice. Being aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary action of the authorities in not holding the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the post of

SOURABH KUMAR

Additional Director General in time; depriving the applicant from the fundamental right to be considered for promotion to the next higher post of Director General, Geological Survey of India, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for a direction to the authorities to immediately hold Review Departmental Promotion Committee as was scheduled for promotion to the post of Additional Director General and thereafter, to hold regular Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Director General, Geological Survey of India. Hence this OA.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1-2 have filed their written statement, wherein they averred that a model calendar provides a reference for conducting DPC for the vacancy year. But, convening a DPC does not depend only on the availability of vacancies and eligible officers in the feeder grade but upon several other factors. It depends on many allied parameters, such as– availability of vacancy, approval from Ministry of Mines, availability of APARS, Vigilance Clearance Certificate, Penalty Certificate, Integrity Certificate, Legal Clearance etc. obtaining of which generally takes a considerable time. The entire process involves multiple stake holders and the modal calendar itself envisages the consideration that administrative processes take time in the due diligence to attain finality of the entire task. Moreover, regarding DPC in the grade of SAG and onwards, GSI does not have any direct role to play with UPSC where the DPCs are held. GSI has to submit the

SOURABH KUMAR

DPC proposal to Ministry for onward submission to UPSC and to carry out the instructions/decisions of UPSC, if any, vetted through Ministry of Mines and Appointment Committee of Cabinet(ACC);irrespective of that, GSI has always tried consciously to hold all DPCs in time. Hence, the averments made by the applicant that the department failed to constitute the DPC timely is strongly denied. It is stated that department has made sincere efforts to convene DPC in time. Due to Cadre Review and reduction in sanctioned strength of ADG (Geology) post in GSI, the DPC for the year 2020 was not convened and the vacancies were carried forward to next year. Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 further states that the applicant being one of the eligible officers for promotion to the post of ADG(Geology) for the year 2019, his name was forwarded. But, DPC held on 19.03.2020 for the vacancy year of 2019 had not assessed the name of the applicant for promotion in terms of para 3.5 of DoPT DOM No. 35034/7/97-Estt. (D) dated 08.02.2002. Since, the applicant's name has not been recommended by the DPC for promotion to the post of ADG (Geology) against the vacancy year 2019, the promotion could not be granted to the applicant. However, the applicant has been granted Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to the post of ADG(G) w.e.f. 25.03.2021 vide office order dated 07.04.2022 (ANNEXURE- R/5) i.e., from the date of his completion of residency period and parity with IAS

SOURABH KUMAR

in terms of DoP&T OM No. AB.14017/64/2008-Estt. (RR) dated 24.05.2009 (ANNEXURE - R/6). Therefore, there is no financial loss to the applicant in the grade of ADG (G). Moreover, he was granted regular promotion in the grade of ADG (G) w.e.f. 01.07.2022 vide office order No. 32013/ADG(G)/2021 22.06.2022(ANNEXURE & 2022/Pers.I 127/A-dated R/7). The said promotion was accepted by the applicant without any protest. Therefore, the applicant is estopped from taking any stand contrary to the same.

4. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 has filed written statement and submitted that Government of India (Department of Personnel & Training) vide their OM No.22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.89 has issued guidelines/instructions, as amended from time to time, on the issue of holding meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The Commission holds various DPCs, strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and the provisions of aforesaid OM and other guidelines/instructions issued by DoP&T from time to time on the subject, after receipt of specific proposals from the concerned Ministries/Departments, complete in all respects, it also takes into consideration various inputs given by the concerned Department, such as, Seniority Lists, Eligibility Lists, ACRs and also certificates of critical importance viz. Integrity Certificate, Vigilance Clearance, Major/Minor Penalty Statement etc., of feeder category officers, received along with

SOURABH KUMAR

such proposals. However, after consultation with DoP&T, the Department had decided to convene the DPC for the VY-2021 and VY- 2022 for the reduced posts as recommended by the Cadre Review Committee (CRC). Accordingly, DPC convened on 03.06.2022 considered the eligible officers including the applicant (whose name was figured at Sl. No.6 in the eligibility list for the VY-2022) and the applicant was promoted to the post of ADG(Geology) on 22.06.2022 along with other recommended officers. Due to non-availability of vacancies in the VY-2021, the applicant was not required to be assessed as per DOP&T's OM dated 08.02.2002. That the post of DG fell vacant on 01.09.2023 due to superannuation of Shri Janardan Prasad, Director General on 31.08.2023 and no other officers in the feeder grade was found eligible for consideration to the post of DG, GSI on promotion method; and the Department has initiated the process to filling up the post of DG, GSI. The applicant is aggrieved by non-consideration of his promotion by the Department in time against VY-2020 as the applicant fell short of about 01 year 06 months qualifying service for the VY-2023 and issue of notification to fill up the post of DG, GSI under 'failing which' clause of RRs. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 further submits that the Commission can convene a meeting of DPC only when a proposal complete in all respect is received from the administrative department

SOURABH KUMAR

complying with all the regulatory instructions of the DOP&T and the direction of the Hon'ble Court, if any. A DPC proposal for convening a meeting of DPC to consider promotion to the post of Additional Director General (Geology) for the vacancy years 2021 and 2022, complete in all respect, was submitted by the Ministry i.e., Ministry of Mines to the UPSC on 06.04.2022 only. In the said proposal, the Ministry had informed that the DPC in the grade of Additional Director General (Geology) for the vacancy year 2020 was not convened in view of pending Cadre Review of GSI where sanctioned strength of Additional Director General (Geology) was proposed to be reduced. The sanctioned strength in the grade of ADG(G) has been reduced from 13 to 7 as per recommendations of Cadre Review Committee(CRC). The DoP&T vide their ID note dated 18.12.2020 advised the Ministry to follow the decision of the Cadre Review Committee in the case of convening the DPC where sanctioned strength is proposed to be reduced. On the basis of the CRC recommendation, the DoP&T vide their OM dated 19.01.2021 reduced the sanctioned strength in the grade of ADG(G). In view of the DoP&T's advice dated 18.12.2020 to follow CRC recommendation and DoP&T's order dated 19.01.2021 conveying the revised/reduced sanctioned strength, the Ministry of Mines decided to process the DPC proposal considering the CRC recommendation as the sanctioned Strength. Accordingly, the meeting of DPC was held in the

SOURABH KUMAR

UPSC on 03.06.2022. The DPC recommended the name of the applicant for promotion to the post of ADG(G) in GSI for the vacancy year 2022. The recommendations of the DPC were communicated to the administrative ministry i.e., Ministry of Mines vide office letter No. 1/63(13)/2022-AP.1(STF) dated 03.06.2022 (Annexure-1). As Regards contentions of the applicant to promote him as ADG(G) w.e.f. 16.01.2020 by convening Review DPC, it is stated that the Administrative Ministry did not report any vacancy for the vacancy year 2020 due to revised sanctioned strength as per recommendations of CRC/advice of DoP&T. The applicant was not assessed for the vacancy year 2021 due to want of sufficient number of vacancies and was thus recommended for the vacancy year 2022. Regarding recruitment to the post of Director General and to consider the applicant for holding the post of Director General-in Charge, it is stated that issues relating to resorting to alternate mode of recruitment as per Recruitment Rules and appointing an Officer in-charge on the post of DG is an administrative matter and falls under the domain of Administrative Ministry and UPSC has no role to play in such matter.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder and has contended that the applicant was one of the eligible officers for promotion to the post of ADG (Geology) for the vacancy year 2019.

SOURABH KUMAR

However, the DPC did not assess him for promotion to the post of ADG (Geology) because the applicant was not required to be assessed in terms of Para. 3.5 of the DOPT O.M No. 35034/7/97 Estt. (D) dated 08.02.2002. Such stand of the respondents is not tenable in the eye of law because the said O.M which the respondents are relying upon is not applicable in the instant case. Further, one Shri R. Baskaran is promoted at Sl. No.1 against one of the 4 Vacancies of ADG (Geology) that arose for the vacancy year 2019, However, the said person Shri R. Baskaran was not in the zone of consideration as per the seniority position of the Deputy Director General published vide letter No.90/A-32013/Gradation List/DDG (G)/2020/Pers.I dated 18.03.2020 whereas, the name of one Shri Jaya Lal, whose seniority position in Seniority List dated 18.03.2020 was at Sl. No. 4, should have been promoted to the post of ADG (Geology), but his name was excluded from the list prepared by the Respondents. Further, the reason given by the respondent Department in respect of withholding of the DPC in the year 2021 for the vacancy year 2020 is not tenable in the eye of law as because there is no such power of the DoPT/Cadre Review Committee to withheld the DPC for a particular year as clarified vide DOPT reply No. 1/11019/4/2023-CRD dated 28- 08-2023 by the DoPT in response to a RTI Application.It is pertinent to mention herein that the authorities are well aware of the future vacancy position in a department in advance and as such in the present case, the

SOURABH KUMAR

process for convening DPC in respect of vacancy for the year 2020 could have been completed well in advance, which the authorities have failed to do, which resulted in depriving the petitioner from his legitimate right to be considered for promotion to the next promotional post of ADG (Geology) for the vacancy year 2020. Counsel further submits that non-convening of the DPC for the vacancy year 2020 by the authorities was not in accordance with rules governing the field and it was obligatory on the part of the respondent authorities to conduct/convene DPC in Year 2021 for the 6 (Six) vacant posts of ADG (Geology) that arose in the year 2020. Moreover, non-convening of the DPC in the year 2021 for the 6 (six) vacant posts of ADG (Geology), has denied the right of the applicant to be considered for promotion to the post of ADG (Geology). Counsel also states that change in any condition of service as laid down in the Recruitment Rules including that of increase or decrease in the cadre strength is to be done only by a Cadre Review Committee followed by Cabinet Approval and Gazette Notification. In the instant case, the process of reduction in the Cadre Strength of ADG is still under consideration at the level of Cadre Review Committee and has not been approved by the Cadre Review Committee. Further, as per Ministry of Mines letter No. 1/2/2020-Mines-II, the Cadre strength was proposed to

SOURABH KUMAR

be reduced to 7 only on 16.11.2021. However, the DPC for the vacancy year 2020 ought to have been convened in the year 2021which the authorities had not done.

6. Heard the parties, perused the records and considered the submission of the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited following judgment in his favour:

(i) Order passed by CAT, Principal Bench in OA No. 2010/2022 dated 01.05.2024 upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 10508/2024 decided on 31.07.2024

(ii) Order passed by the CAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of Sunil Bhattacharya Vs Union of India and Anr decided on 02nd March 2000 wherein the CAT Kolkata Bench relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Mohan Singh Rathore and Ors., Union of India v. B.S. Agarwal & Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. In the case of Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee, he was denied the chances of becoming Ticket Collectors on account of administrative delay and it was held at page 366 as follows:

SOURABH KUMAR

“5....The mistake or delay on the part of the department therefore should not be permitted to recoil on the appellants.” Therefore, the delay in convening the DPC at the appropriate time and approving the selection by the competent authority should not stand in the way of the applicant for getting promotion as Deputy Director General (Geology). 7.2 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the CAT Kolkata Bench had allowed the said OA and as such the applicant therein was declared promoted and he was granted other retiral benefits on the basis of fixation of his pay.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong in case of Shri Andrew Shabong & Ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors dated 30.01.2023 wherein while considering the case of the applicant, the Hon’ble High Court held that there being no special circumstances or rules present that vest the petitioners with any right to claim for promotion from a retrospective date, and dismissed the said petition. The Respondents also relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India (UoI) & Ors. Vs. N.C. Murali & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 4156/2008, (2017) 13 SCC 575 dated 14.02.2017 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in para 14 that “...it is clear that unless there is specific rule entitling the applicants to

SOURABH KUMAR

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 effected.”

9. The applicant is claiming promotion from the date of the eligibility on 01.04.2019 instead of his actual promotion on 22.06.2022 on account of the fact that DPC to the post of ADG (Geology) was not held in time on account of reduction of strength by the cadre review committee to 7 from 13 which did not have the approval of Competent Authority in contravention of rules.

10. After assessing the entire records and submissions of the parties, it is noted that in the case of the applicant, the promotion to the post of ADG pertains to vacancy year 2020 when the Cadre Strength was 13 and not 7 which is verified from the Gradation List of the Additional Director General upto 2021 as published by the Office of the Director General, wherein it has been reflected that the Cadre Strength of the Additional Director General is 13 and not 7. It is further stated that, the Authorities of GSI have taken the shelter of advice of the Ministry of Mines/DOPT, through ID Note Dy.No.1433953/20/CR dated 18-12-2020 and Ministry of Mines letter No. 1/2/2020-Mines-II dated 16-11-2021. It is also pertinent to mention herein that, as per Para 2.3.1 of O.Μ. Νo. 22011/5/86-Estt. (D) dated 10.04.1989 pertaining to Guidelines on

SOURABH KUMAR

Departmental Promotion Committee, the requirement of convening annual meetings of the DPC/DCC should be dispensed with only after a certificate has been issued by the appointing authority that there are no vacancies to be filled up by promotion or no officers are due for confirmation during the year in question. The proceedings of any DPC may be reviewed only if the DPC has not taken all material facts into consideration or if material facts have not been brought to the notice of the DPC or if there have been grave errors in the procedure followed by the DPC. Thus, it may be necessary to convene Review DPCs to rectify certain unintentional mistakes. As per Para 18.1 of O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt. (D) dated 10.04.1989 and O.M. No. 220131/1/97-Estt. (D) dated 13.04.1998, the illustrative cases, but not exhaustive cases for calling review DPC is reproduced herein below under which the case of the applicant is falling:- (a) Non-reporting of vacancies due to error or omission (i.e. though the vacancies were available at the time of holding of DPC meeting, these were not reported to the DPC. This leads to injustice to the officers concerned by artificially restricting the zone of consideration); or (b) Where eligible persons were omitted to be considered; or

(c) Where ineligible persons were considered by mistake; or (d) Where the seniority of a person is revised with retrospective effect resulting in a variance of the seniority list placed before the DPC; or

SOURABH KUMAR

(e) Where some procedural irregularity was committed by a DPC; or (f) Where adverse remarks in the CRs were toned down or expunged after the DPC had considered the case of the officer.

11. Further, for the delay committed by the Department in holding timely Departmental Promotion Committee, the applicant apparently was deficient in completing of 2 years of service as on 31.08.2023 for the promotion to the post of Director General. If the Departmental Promotion Committee was held timely in the year 2020 as was notified, the applicant would have completed more than 2 years in the post of Additional Director General and became eligible for the post of Director General also. We are of the considered opinion that promotion has not been considered by the respondent authorities in not convening the DPC for the vacancy year 2020 in time due to cadre restructuring. However, this entitlement is confined to the applicant’s fundamental right to be considered for promotion under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India (see Govt. of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi, C.A. No. 13187/2024, decided 27.11.2024); it does not extend to a vested right to promotion itself, still less to notional promotion with effect from the date he became eligible. It is well settled that promotion takes effect only from the date it is actually granted, and not from the date a vacancy arises or an officer becomes eligible for consideration (Union of India v.

SOURABH KUMAR

Manpreet Singh Poonam, [2022] 2 SCR 764), save in exceptional cases where the delay is shown to be mala fide or wholly unreasonable and arbitrary which has not been established in this case.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances, mentioned above, it is clear that the settled law as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (UoI) & Ors. Vs. N.C. Murali, (2017) 13 SCC 575 and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong in case of Shri Andrew Shabong & Ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors, the petitioner does not have right to promotion from the date of occurrence of vacancy and it is to be given on date when it is actually effected.

13. In view of the foregoing, it is evident from the records that vacancies in the post of Additional Director General (Geology) were available for the vacancy year 2020 and that the applicant was eligible for consideration. The respondents are, therefore, directed to convene the appropriate DPC/Review DPC, as the case may be, for the vacancy year 2020 and consider the applicant for promotion in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and applicable instructions. If found fit, he shall be granted notional promotion from the date on which such promotion became due, together with consequential benefits, including consideration of his eligibility for promotion to the post of Director

SOURABH KUMAR

General, in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The O.A. is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

14. Pending M.A.(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(SANJIV KUMAR) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/SK/

SOURABH KUMAR