AMRIK CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.A. has been filed by the applicant challenging the action of the respondents in not considering him for promotion to the post of JCIT, Income Tax vis   -vis his junior namely Mr. B. Yogalingam, in pursuance to the order No. A -12018/1/2013 -AVI dated 24.09.2013 read with order of even number dated 01.10.2013. He has sought issuance of a direction to the respondents to restore/assign him the correct seniority viz -a -viz his above named junior.

(2.) PURSUANT to notice, Mr. K.K. Thakur, learned counsel put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. On 12.05.2014, learned counsel for the respondents produced a copy of order dated 31.03.2014 whereby the applicant was promoted to the post of JCIT with immediate effect and not from the date when his immediate junior had been promoted, which was objected by the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents sought and was granted time to get the modified order granting promotion to the applicant from due date.

(3.) DESPITE the above, the respondents did not file the necessary affidavit in pursuance to the orders of this Court and the matter was adjourned several times. From the above narration of the facts, we can conclude that the applicant has been victimized by the respondents in not promoting him from the date when his junior was promoted. Though promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right but consideration therefor has been held to be a fundamental right. The respondents cannot be allowed to act in an arbitrary manner and withheld promotion without any valid reason. It is held by the Lordship of the Hon'ble Apex Court in, 1999 (7) SC209 ' Ajit Singh -II Vs. State of Punjab & Others and, 2010(2) SCC 301 ' Union of India Vs. Gopal Chandra Mishra & Others, that the right to be considered for promotion and the seniority attached to such promotion is an important facet of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. On the first instance during the pendency of the present O.A. the respondents considered and promoted the applicant from a date later than when his named junior was promoted. When respondents were directed to give explanation for deviation, today they have produced an order dated 27.6.2014 where by they have changed the date of promotion of the applicant and made it effective from 01.10.2013, the date when his junior Shri B. Yogalingam was so promoted. These facts lead us to conclude that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner.