TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dgment dated 26.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (for short "the High Court") in Writ Petition (C) No. 7080 of 2005. By the said judgment, the High Court, while allowing the writ petition issued certain directions in supersession of the directions issued in O.A. No. 148 of 2001 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Cuttack (for short "the CAT") by its order dated 04.05.2005. The order of the Tribunal had been assailed before the High Court by the Respondent No. 1 herein. 2. The facts in brief are that, at the time of filing O.A. No. 148 of 2001 on 22.04.2001 before the CAT, the Respondent No. 1 was working as Principal System Analyst (Scientist D) in the National Informatics Centre, Cuttack. As recommended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iors were recommended and granted promotion vide order dated 14.02.2001. As the Respondent No. 1 was not granted promotion, she submitted representations on 25.02.2001 and 12.03.2001 to the Appellant No. 2/Director General and on 13.03.2001 to the Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology, making a request to reconsider her case. The said representations were rejected vide memorandum dated 16.04.2001 communicated by Joint Director, National Informatics Centre. 3. The Respondent No. 1, by filing OA No. 148 of 2001 on 22.04.2001, assailed the order rejecting the representation and the promotion order of the incumbent juniors (Respondent No. 5 and 6 therein) dated 14.02.2001 before the CAT. Vide order dated 04.05.2005, CAT disposed of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... board in the scale of 10 points. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 120 (one hundred and twenty) days from the date of receipt of this order. 4. Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the said order, filed W.P. (C) No. 7080 of 2005 seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order dated 04.05.2005 passed by the CAT. In the said Writ Petition filed before the High Court, vires of Rule 4(b) was not under challenge. No such prayer was made in the Writ Petition. In the absence of any foundation in the pleading to challenge the vires of the said Rule and without asking for any relief, Rule 4(b) has been declared ultra vires by the impugned order. The operative part of the order passed by the High Court is reprod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....challenge because the original application was filed prior to notifying the Rules vide office memorandum dated 06.08.2001. For ready reference, prayer made in the original application is reproduced as under: It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to issue notice to the Respondents for show cause as to why the prayer made here under shall not be allowed. If the Respondents failed to show cause or upon insufficient causes shown be pleased to: i. quash the promotion order of Respondents No. 5 and 6 dated 14.2.2001. ii. direct the Respondents to give promotion to the applicant to the rank of technical director from the date when her juniors promoted to the said post i.e.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay pass any appropriate order as just and proper. 8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the prayer made in the writ petition, it is luculent that the Respondent No. 1 did not set out any grounds to declare Rule 4(b) of the Rules as ultra vires. No such relief was even prayed for in the writ petition. The Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition merely sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to set-aside the order of the CAT. Therefore in the given facts, there was no occasion for the High Court to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires. 9. While hearing learned Counsels appearing for the parties, we asked Shri B.H. Marlapalle, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri Shibashish Mishra appearing on behalf of the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court declaring Rule 4(b) of the Rules is set aside. Since we have set aside the declaration of the High Court holding Rule 4(b) to be invalid consequently, the grievance of the Respondent No. 1 about any illegality in denial of promotion to her also does not arise. No case has been made out as to how in the event of Rule 4(b) being valid, how the denial of promotion to her was unjustified for in the years 1999, 2000 and for the years before 2007. 11. In any event, the FCS has been modified, pursuant to the recommendations of the sixth pay commission vide Office Memorandum dated 10.09.2010. Further, by Office Memorandum dated 19.09.2016, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has issued a personnel policy for Group 'A....