DULAL SUTRADHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition puts to challenge the order, dated 03.11.2011, passed, in O.A. No. 43 of 2011, by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, whereby the learned Tribunal has held that the respondent No. 6, who is hereinafter referred to as the private respondent, was eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Programmer/Senior System Analyst and, hence, the penal, approved by the Union Public Service Commission (in short, 'UPSC') shall be acted upon. We have heard Mr. P.D. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. A.K. Sarkar, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. We have also heard Mr. M. Chanda, learned counsel, appearing for the private respondent.

(2.) By putting to challenge the order, dated 03.11.2011, aforementioned, the petitioner herein contends that he ought to have been impleaded as one of the parties to OA No. 43 of 2011, wherein the decision, as indicated hereinbefore, has been rendered, the ground of raising such a contention being, inter alia, that the private respondent, had earlier filed OA No. 32 of 2008, wherein the present petitioner stood impleaded as respondent No. 6 and, in the said OA, while seeking promotion to the post of Senior Programmer/Senior System Analyst in EDP Centre, NF Railway, Maligaon (redesigned as IT cadre), he had also challenged the promotion of the present petitioner to the said post with effect from 07.09.2006.

(3.) By order, dated 31.03.2010, O.A. No. 32/2008 was disposed of by learned Tribunal without, however, directing promotion of the private respondent herein and without interfering with the present petitioner's promotion to the post of Senior Programmer/Senior System Analyst. This apart, the learned Tribunal, in its earlier order, dated 31.3.2010, passed in OA No. 32 of 2008, instead of entering into the merit of the issues, raised before it, observed that if the applicant, i.e., the private respondent herein made any representation on the aforesaid aspects highlighting his grievances, the same shall be considered objectively and appropriately in accordance with rules and law by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by making reasoned and speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation, which could be made by the private respondent herein, but as regards validity of promotion accorded to the present petitioner, who stood impleaded in OA No. 32 of 2008, as respondent No. 6, no observation was made.