RAJENDRA BABOO SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by way of this writ petition has sought two fold reliefs (1) seniority on the post of Assistant/accountant from 30. 8. 76 and (2) promotion/appointment on the post of Section Officer on 34% merit quota of direct recruitment under advertisement dated 15. 9. 1983 (Ann. 1 ).

(2.) FACTS in brief relevant for controversy of seniority are thus. The petitioner entered in services of the University of Rajasthan (respondent) on the post of LDC in 1961 whereafter undoubtedly he was promoted as UDC and confirmed. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant by order dated 30. 8. 76 (though its copy was not filed by the petitioner but by the respondent alongwith minutes of the Selection Committee) - a bare perusal of which shows that though the petitioner was promoted as Assistant on the recommendation of the DPC but purely on temporary basis only for six months or till duly selected candidates join as Assistant/accountant, and on which post he continued but was put on probation w. e. f. 28. 6. 78 which ultimately resulted in confirmation on the post of Assistant/accountant on 28. 12. 1978 vide order dated 5. 1. 79.

(3.) IN Administrator of U. T. Daman & Diu vs. R. D. Valand (1) there was belated application for promotion; applicant was reverted from the post of Section Officer (Junior Engineer) but again promoted to that post in the year 1979 w. e. f. 28. 9. 1972; representation made in the year 1985 for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer w. e. f. August 1977 when some persons junior to him had been promoted, was rejected and further representation was also rejected and in such circumstances, application filed by him before the CAT in 1990 was held time barred by the Apex Court holding that making successive representation was inconsequential. The Apex Court observed as under:- " IN the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was not justified in putting the clock back by more than 15 years. The Tribunal fell into patent error in brushing aside the question of limitation by observing that the respondent has been making representation from time to time and as such the limitation would not come in his way. "