VALENTE LOURDES A ESTEVES ASSISTANT TRAFFIC INSPECTOR KADAMBA TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD Vs. KADAMBA TRASNPORT CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, as Asst. Traffic Inspector serving under the first respondent, Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd., challenges the promotion given to the third respondent. The main contention of the petitioner is that he is senior to the third respondent in the category of Asst. Traffic Inspector and that normally, the promotion to the post of Traffic Inspector, which is the next promotion for the post of Asst. Traffic Inspector, should be filled up according to the seniority. He submits that on earlier occasions, 4 Asst. Traffic Inspectors, who were senior to the petitioner, were promoted solely on the basis of their seniority. He further contends that no rules have been prescribed for promotion to the post of Traffic Inspector and, therefore, in absence of any rules, seniority alone should be considered for the purpose of promotion to the post of Traffic Inspector.

(2.) Reply has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, denying allegations of the petitioner. It is stated in the reply that there are rules prescribing the manner in which the promotion to the post of Traffic Inspectors should he made and those rules have been exhibited as "Exhibit R-D" and "Exhibit R-C". Exhibit R-C are the old rules. which have been subsequently amended by Exhibit R-I). Learned Counsel for the first respondent brought to our attention that in pursuance of the old rules and the present rules, the mode of promotion to the post of Traffic Inspector, is by way of selection. Therefore, the counsel for the first respondent contended that the allegation of the petitioner that the promotions are usually done to the post of Traffic Inspector based on seniority, cannot be sustained.

(3.) On examining the rival contentions of the parties and the perusal of the documents produced in this case, we are satisfied that the post of Traffic Inspector should he filled up from amongst the Asst. Traffic Inspectors, by following the method of selection by the D.PC. It is not disputed that the D.P.('. has selected the third respondent and there is no allegation against the D.P.C. that the selection has been done on extraneous circumstances and mala fide. We cannot also accept the contention of the petitioner that as is previously the promotion should be on the basis of merit cum seniority, in which case, seniority could not he overruled. When the rules specifically lay down that the promotion is on the basis of selection, the petitioner's only right in such circumstances is to he considered for selection. He had no such case that he has not been considered. In absence of any allegations of violation of rules or mala fide, selection of the third respondent cannot be challenged. We are not inclined to interfere in this matter. In these circumstances, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.