Vinod Kumar Sandlesh vs Union Of India & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant is now working as Joint Director in Central Translation Bureau (CTB). The next promotion is to the post of Director. CTB referred

the matter in this behalf, to the UPSC. The applicant is stated to be very high in the seniority, for promotion to the post of Director. On being required

by the UPSC, the department approached the DOP&T, in the context of issuance of vigilance clearance to the applicant.

The grievance of the applicant is that the vigilance clearance is being withheld and on account of that, there is every likelihood that he may not be

selected for the post. In that background, he filed the OA with a prayer to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to give vigilance clearance to him for the

purpose of promotion and to consider his application dated 02.07.2009.

This OA was listed earlier and it was directed that the learned counsel for the respondents shall obtain instructions. Today, it is stated that the

vigilance clearance is withheld on account of the pendency of the inquiry against the applicant.

We heard Mr. Balaji Subramanian, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. AnupamaBansal, learned counsel for the respondents, at the stage of

admission.

The name of the applicant was forwarded to the UPSC to be considered for promotion to the post of Director. In the case of promotion, the

vigilance clearance is essential, even for a selected candidate. The grievance of the applicant is that the vigilance clearance is withheld. As of now,

we are not aware of the correspondence that ensued between the various departments in this behalf. We are of the view that the applicant can be

given a reply as to the status of his vigilance clearance.

We, therefore, dispose of the OA, directing the first respondent to inform the applicant through a communication about the status of the vigilance

clearance, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.