H. C. WIDHANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) H. C. Widhani petitioner by means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has prayed for the issuance of a writ to quash an order which, according to him, amounts to his supersession. Prayer has also been made that the petitioner may be confirmed in Class I service with effect from Dec. 1, 1958 and be thereafter promoted accordingly The respondents named in the petition are (1) the Union of India. (2) the General Manager, Northern Railway, (3) K P.A. Raj Divisional Commercial Superintendent Southern Railway and (4) M. P. Singh Bali, Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Northern Railway.

(2.) The petitioner was selected as a temporary Assistant Traffic Officer by the Railway Board on the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission. Letter of appointment dated Feb. 2, 1967 was issued by the Railway Board in this connection. Clause (a), (b), (e) and (f) of the letter of appointment were to be following effect:-

(3.) The petition has been resisted on behalf of the respondents and the affidavit of Rajinder Lal Dhawan, Assistant Personnel Officer of the N. Rly. has been filed. We have heard Mr. Chopra on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Aggarwal on behalf of the respondents, and are of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition. The letter of appointment which was issued to the petitioner clearly stipulated that the appointment of the petitioner was to be on a temporary basis and that his services were liable to be terminated on one month's notice on either side during the period of temporary employment. As regards his confirmation the condition of the appointment was that the petitioner would be eligible alongwith other temporary Assistant Traffic Officers for being considered for absorption in the permanent vacancies in the Traffic Transport and Commercial department upto a maximum of two vacancies in a year. It was further stated that in the event of his being selected for that service his seniority would count from the date of confirmation. It would thus appeal that the confirmation and the absorption in a permanent vacancy of the petitioner and other such temporary Assistant Traffic Officers were not automatic but were dependent upon their selection. The affidavit of Rajinder Lal Dhawan shows that temporary officers are permanently absolved in Class 1 junior scale in various departments on railways by positive act of Selection arranged through the agency of Departmental promotion Committee presided over by a member of the Union Public Service Commission. The Committee assesses the worth of all eligible officers of a' Department after the perusal of the particulars of service and confidential reports and make recommendation for their absorption in class 1 junior scale. On the recommendations of this committee, being accepted by the Railway Board and approved by the Union Public Service Commission orders for permanent absorption are made to the extent vacancies are available. The affidavit further shows that the case of the petitioner for absorption was duly considered by the departmental Promotion Committee presided over by a Member of the Union Public Service Commission and the petitioner was not considered to be fit for promotion. Mr. Chopra on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the affidavit of Rajinder Lal Dhawan that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for absorption in permanent vacancy should not be accepted at its face value because the petitioner was not apprised of that fact in reply to his representation. We however find ourselves unable to accept this contention because there i.e. no cogent ground to disbelieve the affidavit of Rajinder Lal Dhiwan who has no personal interest in the matter. In any case, if the, petitioner wanted to controvert that statement of fact in the affidavit of Rajinder Lal Dhawan, the petitioner could have done so by means of a rejoinder. No such rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was also in our opinion not imperative on the part of the authorities concerned to .inform the petitions that his case alongwith others had been reply considered and he had not been found to be suitable for promotion. The t above omission of the authorities in any event, would, not show that the averment in Dhawan's affidavit are not true.