V M CHOPRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 1.3.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandgiarh. Vide the impugned order dated 1.3.2006, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner for demanding a consideration at the hands of the departmental promotion committee, for onward promotion from State Forest Service to the Indian Forest Service. The relevant dates for consideration for the instant claim of the petitioner were 1.1.1984 and 1.1.1985. It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that as on 1.1.1984, the petitioner was ineligible for consideration for promotion to the Indian Forest Service. The only issue for adjudication, therefore is, as to whether the petitioner was eligible for consideration on 1.1.1985. The Tribunal rejected this claim of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner was ineligible for consideration as on 1.1.1985, on account of the fact, that the petitioner had already crossed the age of 54 years by then. The Tribunal also dismissed the challenge raised at the hands of the petitioner on account of the fact that the applicant had approached the Tribunal after more than 17 years of retirement from State Forest Service.

(2.) On 27.7.2006, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment so as to enable him to place further material on the record of this case. In furtherance to the liberty granted to him, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 4.8.2006. Having perused the same, we are of the view that the same has no relevance to the controversy raised at the hands of the petitioner i.e., as against the decision rendered by the Tribunal through the impugned order dated 1.3.2006.

(3.) Today again learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment so as to enable him to place certain statutory rules on the record of this case. It is not possible for us to accept the instant request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for an adjournment. Even though notice of motion has not yet been issued, counsel has sought a number of adjournments already. It is not understandable why the relevant statutory rules should not have been incorporated in the pleadings of the writ petition as originally filed. We, therefore, decline the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for a further adjournment. The instant writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. In the interest of justice, however, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, on the same cause of action, by incorporating all the statutory rules/ instructions as the petitioner desires this Court to examine.