SHIV KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia that the respondents No.1 to 4/University and the respondent No.5/College be directed to withdraw the post of Section Officer (Administration) from the advertisement dated 4.2.2014 published in the daily newspaper (Annexure P-4). Further, the petitioner seeks a declaration to the effect that he is entitled for promotion to the post of Section Officer (Administration) and therefore, the process of making direct recruitment to the subject post ought to be stayed by the respondents.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had joined the respondent No.5/College as a temporary Junior Assistant-cum-Typist on 12.4.1999 and was confirmed to the said post in March, 2002. In the month of March, 2006, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant. In February, 2008, the respondent No.5/College sought a clarification from the respondents No.1 to 4/University regarding promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. Vide letter dated 28.2.2008, the University had clarified to the respondent No.5/College that no candidate with less than three years' experience would be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. Thereafter, in the year 2009, the respondent No.5/College had again approached the respondent No.4/University seeking approval for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant (Administration), which was once again turned down by the respondents No.1 to 4/University, vide letter dated 1.9.2009, reiterating inter alia, its earlier decision on the same issue communicated to the respondent No.5/College vide letter dated 3.7.2009. It is relevant to note that the petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid decision taken by the University in the court of law.

(3.) The petitioner was finally promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 1.2.2012. Now, he claims that he ought to have been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant (Administration) w.e.f. 2009 and the rejection by the respondents No.1 to 4/University of the recommendation made by the respondent No.5/College is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside.