D R PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.5.2001, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), rejecting Original Application No. 620/2001, filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has come up in this writ petition, assailing the said order as well as his reversion order dated 26.4.2001 which was impugned before the Tribunal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that he was promoted to the post of Lab Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 and was posted in Laboratory (Workshop) Jhansi, vide order dated 23.3.1995, passed by the Senior Personnel Officer (Workshop), Jhansi and after more than six years, he was reverted by the order dated 26.4.2001 without giving any opportunity or show-cause notice or opportunity, hence, the order of reversion is illegal and in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the Tribunal erred in law in rejecting his claim petition without considering the aforesaid issue. Lastly he submitted that on 2.5.2001 result of regular selection for promotion to the post of Chemical and Metallurgical Superintendent, Grade II in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500 was declared wherein the petitioner was declared successful and therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to protect his pay which he was receiving at the time the impugned order was passed. To substantiate his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in Bhadei Rai v. Union of India and others, 2005 (4) Supreme 551 : AIR 2005 SC 2404 : 2005 (5) AWC 4776 (SC). We do not find any force in the aforesaid submission. From the facts available on record, it appears that the petitioner was selected and appointed as Junior Chemical Metallurgical Assistant in the grade of Rs. 1,320-2,040 on 27.11.1984. He was promoted to the post of Chemical and Metallurgical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,300 on 18.10.1988. In the Chemical and Metallurgical cadre the next higher post was Lab Superintendent/ Chemical and Metallurgical Superintendent, Grade II, which is a selection post in the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 (revised to Rs. 6,500-10,500). A selection for 25 vacancies was held in 1993-94 wherein the petitioner was not considered since he was not in the zone of consideration and field of eligibility. The cadre controlling authority was Chief Personnel Officer, Central Railway, Bombay for making appointment/ promotion to the post of Lab Superintendent / Chemical and Metallurgical Superintendent, Grade II. However, the Senior Personnel Officer (Workshop), Central Railway, Jhansi at the local level issued an order on 23.3.1995, posting him in an officiating and stop gap arrangement as Lab Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 with the condition that the said arrangement is subject to the result of the matter pending before the Tribunal and it shall also not give any right to the petitioner to continue in higher scale and he shall be liable to be reverted to his substantive post at any time. It was also mentioned that the order was being passed with concurrence of the competent authority. In the counter-affidavit the respondents have also said that a selection for regular appointment on the aforesaid post was held in 1995-96 wherein the petitioner was considered and allowed to participate by appearing in the written test but he could not qualify therein. Hence, he could not be promoted on regular basis. Thereafter in 1998-99 also regular selection was held but there the petitioner could not be considered for the reason that number of vacancies was less and the petitioner did not figure in the zone of consideration. The last selection was held in 2001 wherein he qualified in the written test. Thereafter interview was held on 26.4.2001 and result was declared on 12.5.2001 wherein the petitioner was empanelled and ultimately was promoted to the post of Chemical and Metallurgical Superintendent, Grade II in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500 on 15.5.2001. The local arrangement made by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 23.3.1995 was without consulting respondent No. 2 and even otherwise did not confer any right upon the petitioner to continue on the basis thereof or to claim any advantage, since the said arrangement was purely ad hoc and on officiating basis, therefore, no illegality was committed in reverting the petitioner vide order dated 26.4.2001 and the learned Tribunal did not err in law in rejecting the claim petition.