DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal dated 31.7.2000 in O.A. No. 1334/90 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that he was appointed as District Co-operative & Supplies Officer in the Co-operative Department which post was re-designated as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The petitioner alleged that the post of Deputy Registrar was to be filled by promotion from amongst the Assistant Registrars and the petitioner alleged that he was eligible for the post of Deputy Registrar. He also claimed that he belongs to schedule caste category 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. and his promotion was to be considered against the point reserved for schedule caste category in the roster. On the basis of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee which met in March, 1983, one Shri L.C. Kapoor and Shri G.C. Vaidya were promoted to the post of Deputy Registrars and the petitioner alleged that these promotions had been made against points 13 and 14 of the roster, though point No. 14 was reserved for schedule caste category to which the petitioner belongs and should have been promoted against this point. He challenged the appointment of respondent No. 2 G.C. Vaidya against this point. On his representation he was informed that no post of Deputy Registrar reserved for schedule caste candidate has been filed and being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal after his representation was rejected against his reversion.

(2.) LEARNED Tribunal in its impugned order had observed that in 1983 his case was not within the zone of consideration since one post reserved for scheduled caste was already occupied by Shri D.R. Sakia belonging to schedule caste category. It was also observed that his grievance that he was not considered against reserved point is not correct. The minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting had been perused by learned Tribunal which observed that the name of the petitioner was considered by the Committee but he was not appointed in view of the vigilance case against him and they also terminated the ad hoc promotion of petitioner to the post of Deputy Registrar since the post was to be filled up on regular basis by promoting an official duly recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The learned Tribunal had observed that the grievance of the petitioner was incorrect that he was not considered against the reserved post. The Tribunal, however, did not make a reference to the roster maintained in regard to the promotion.

(3.) THEREFORE , from which ever angle the case of the petitioner is looked into considering the roster point, there was no post of schedule caste category available at that time when the promotions were made by the Departmental Promotion Committee since the post was already occupied by one another person belonging to the schedule caste category and the learned Tribunal had considered the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and no infirmity can be found with the said order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.