RAM NARAYAN PRASAD GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Girish K. Patel for the petitioner, who by way of this petition challenges orders dtd. 12/9/2012, 24/1/2013 and 22/3/2024, whereby the promotion issued to the petitioner is cancelled and representations there-against were rejected.

(2.) It would appear that the petitioner had been promoted vide an order dtd. 11/5/2012 from the post of Sub-Inspector, Fire to the post of Inspector, Fire. It appears that upon the promotion being given, the petitioner was required to give his willingness for accepting the promotional post, more particularly it appears that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was selected for joining the UN Peace Keeping Force in Haiti. It appears that vide communication dtd. 18/6/2012, the petitioner has given his unwillingness for accepting the promotion to the rank of Inspector and whereas in the communication of unwillingness the petitioner has clearly mentioned as under :

(3.) Based upon such unwillingness, the promotion given to the petitioner from the post of Sub-Inspector, Fire to the Inspector, Fire had been cancelled vide order dtd. 12/9/2012. It appears that the petitioner had thereafter upon joining the Peace Keeping Force at Haiti, submitted a representation for restoration of his promotion and whereas vide a communication dtd. 24/1/2013, the same had been rejected by the competent authority. The petitioner thereafter again made a representation to the respondents for the promotion to be restored and whereas vide a communication dtd. 22/7/2013, the respondents had rejected such representation, more particularly submitting that an earlier representation which had been submitted by the petitioner had been disposed of on 24/1/2013, and whereas the petitioner was directed not to make representations on issues which had already been decided. It appears that the petitioner was promoted as Inspector on 1/9/2014. It also appears that the petitioner had submitted representations intermittently. Thereafter, on 9/1/2024, the petitioner had submitted a legal notice through his learned Advocate, more particularly again seeking for grant of deemed date from the date the petitioner was first promoted. The said application/notice had been rejected by the respondents vide their communication dtd. 22/3/2024. It would thus appear that the actual order impugned would be only the order dtd. 12/9/2012, whereby promotion given to the petitioner had been cancelled and possibly the order dtd. 24/1/2013, whereby the representation against cancellation of promotion had been rejected. The order dtd. 22/3/2024, clearly appears to be a ruse, just to come out of the limitation of 11-12 years, which the petitioner would face, if a petition was filed challenging the order or the year 2012-2013. As it is, in the order dtd. 22/3/2024, the respondents have merely reiterated that since in the order dtd. 24/1/2013, the respondents have already rejected the representation of the present petir, therefore nothing else was required to be done and whereas the order dtd. 24/1/2013 has been reproduced in the order dtd. 22/3/2024. Thus, essentially it is only the order dtd. 12/9/2012 which is under challenge before this Court.