RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner came to this Court with an allegation that he was senior to the respondent No. 3 M.S. Verma in the cadre of Tracer in the Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur, yet the respondent No. 3 has been promoted to the post of Draftsman Grade II, ignoring the case of the petitioner and without considering the petitioner's claim for promotion.

(2.) HOWEVER , the replies filed by the Union of India and other respondents go to show that the appointment of respondent No. 3, M.s. Verma, on the post of Draftsman Grade II was made not by way of promotion but by direct recruitment. It transpires that the post of Draftsman Grade II in the Defence Laboratory could be filled in by promotion and failing that by direct recruitment. The eligibility for promotion has been laid down in the schedule to the class III Non -Gazetted (Technical, Scientific and other Non -Ministerial) Posts in the Defence Research and Development Organisation Rules, 1968. A person must have held post of Draftsman Grade III for a period of three years to make him eligible for promotion to the post of Draftsman Grade II.

(3.) IT was then argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of respondent No. 3 M.S. Verma, even if by the method of direct recruitment, should be quashed as Verma was not eligible for such appointment and he did not fulfil the necessary qualification?. According to the learned Counsel, respondent No. 3 had not worked as a Draftsman and as such he could not possess two years experience as a Draftsman. The requisite qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Draftsman Grade II is two years experience in Draftsmanship. The petitioner who was himself a Tracer has claimed that he was doing the work of Draftsman and had experience of Draftsmanship. The respondent No. 3. who was also similarly on the post of a Tracer, claims to possess the requisite experience of Draftsmanship. The respondent No. 3 who was also similarly working on the past of a Tracer claims to possess the requisite experience of Draftsmanship. There is no reason to dispute the claim of respondent No. 3 in this respect. The appointment of respondent No. 3 on the post of Draftsman Grade II could not, therefore, be assailed on any reasonable ground.