S C RAY Vs. UOI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the orders dated 17.11.2003 and 06.02.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the OA and RA filed by the petitioner were dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner joined the respondent department in the year 18.10.1979 as a Technical Officer in the Directorate of Sugar in the Department of Food, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution. He was promoted as a Deputy Director on 25.03.1987. The next avenue of promotion available for the petitioner was to the post of Director (Sugar Technical) which had two posts. The promotion was to be made 50% through promotion, failing which by transfer on deputation and 50% through direct recruitment. The post of Director (Sugar Technical) became vacant in 1995. However, on 06.08.1996 one post of Director (Sugar Technical) was abolished vide office order No.246/96-E.1.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, there were numerous file notings from 1997 onwards on the point that the recruitment rules ought to be amended and the promotion to the post of Director should be made only on the basis of promotion. The petitioner was given ad-hoc promotion as Director on 10.09.1996 which post he continued to occupy till 26.09.2001 when he was reveted back as Deputy Director which led to filing of OA being 3080/2002. The respondent thereafter, reviewed the order of reversion on 09.07.2002 and thereafter, the post of the petitioner was regularized by the order of 09.06.2003. The post of Director which the petitioner occupied was regularized ex-post facto for the period 1998 to 09.06.2003. Surprisingly, the petitioner was again reverted on 09.06.2003, which led to filing of second OA being No. 1525/2003 which was dismissed on 17.11.2003 and the review petition was also dismissed on 06.02.2004 which led to the filing of the present writ petition. Another important fact which requires to be noticed is that the petitioner had filed the another OA being No. 342/2003. The petitioner prayed therein that the petitioner should be permitted to continue as Director, the recruitment rules be amended and the period where he worked as ad-hoc Director be regularized. The OA filed was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to re-examine the matter.