DDA vs MADHU BALA DHAM

Judgment text excerpt

$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3091/2014 DDA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. versus MADHU BALA DHAM .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anuj Kr. Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 11.02.2025 AJAY DIGPAUL, J. 1. The relevant facts that emerged from the pleadings are as follows: The respondent herein, Madhu Bala Dham, had been serving as an Assistant Director (Planning) in the Delhi Development Authority (DDA)/petitioner, since 1989. The post of Assistant Director (Planning) is a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Planning) under the applicable Recruitment Rules. Upon completing 10 years of service in 1999, the respondent became eligible for promotion to the higher post, which is Deputy Director (Planning). 2. On 27.08.2003, the DDA held a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting to consider eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Planning). Based on the overall assessment, the DPC found the respondent “unfit” for Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU W.P.(C) 3091/2014 Page 1 of 8 KALRA Signing Date:14.02.2025 18:28:33 promotion. Consequently, she was not included in the panel for promotion. The respondent was never communicated anything adverse by way of caution or notice for improvement by the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by this non-promotion, the respondent filed W.P. (C) 5761/2003 in this Court, wherein the following reliefs were sought: “1) call for the service records of the petitioner and also the proceedings of the DPC held on 27.8.2003 and which is not available with us now. 2) quash and set aside any grading given to the petitioner below the bench mark without any caution/warning/advisory note and without