VISHWANATH PRASAD SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 29.3.1993 (Annexure 4) with respect to respondent Nos. 7 to 10 because they have been promoted over the head of the petitioner and for a direction to the Management for considering the case of the petitioner to the post of Junior Manager Grade II on and from the date when his juniors have been promoted.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was appointed as a clerk on 7.12.1972 and thereafter having served various other places he was promoted to the post of Junior Manager Grade Scale I on 30.12.1980 and worked at various places and ultimately he became a Routine Officer in the same scale in the month of March 1988 and he was continued as such since 1988. There was a circular of the year 1979, according to which, as per the petitioner, he became eligible for being promoted to the grade of Middle Manager Grade II in the year 1987 and this promotion was to be given after completion of 7 years of continuous service as Junior Manager Grade Scale I on the basis of seniority -cum -merit, but the petitioner was never called for interview in the year 1987 or till May 1992. The aforesaid circular was effective with effect from 1.4.1980, so, the first grievance of the petitioner is that he should have been dealt with under that circular and should have been granted promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit. Thereafter on 8.6.1992 he was called for to appear before the Interview Board for his promotion to the post of Middle Manager Grade/Scale II. The petitioner appeared, faced the interview and was waiting for his promotion, but a list for promotion to the post of Middle Management Grade/Scale was published (vide Annexure 2), which contains 352 candidates but his name did not appear in that list and it included only 4 persons from erstwhile Bihar. As per the aforesaid circular the petitioner filed an appeal within the period of limitation of 45 days (vide Annexure -3), but it was not disposed of by the appellate authority. During the pendency of the appeal, a panel of 275 officers for promotion to the post of Middle Manager Grade II was again published on 23rd March 1993 (vide Annexure -4) and in that list the name of the petitioner did not appear, though the name of the respondent Nos. 7 to 10 appeared, who were juniors to the petitioner. Thus, again the petitioner felt discriminated because of non -inclusion of his name in the panel while his juniors' names were included in that panel. Again a seniority list the was published on 13.2.1992 and in that seniority list petitioner was at serial No. 2810 whereas the respondent No.7 was at serial No. 3322, respondent No. 8 was at serial No. 2847, respondent No.9 was at serial No. 3205 and respondent No. 10 was at serial No. 4401, which shows that all these respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 7 to 10 were juniors to him, but they have been promoted in pursuance of the empanelment list without considering the case of the petitioner. By a letter dated 12.10.1992 (vide Annexure 5) the petitioner was informed that his appeal dated 16.9.1992 has been received in the office of Managing Director but no action till date and rejection order was also communicated to him till the date of filing of the writ. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that empanelment has been made without following the principle laid down for promotion in the aforesaid circular. Besides, a large number of officers, who could have been empanelled were not included in those panels and consequently the Union raised the matter and before the respondents against the panel dated 29.3.1993, which has been prepared arbitrarily, discriminately and against the principle laid down for such promotion.

(3.) THE further case of the petitioner is that no adverse remarks was ever communicated to him or he completed the rural service of two years or even he has not been declared failed in the interview and the empanelment for promotion is not based on the result of the interview as many peoples were included in that panel, though they had not faced interview. Therefore, denial of the promotion to the petitioner on the ground of insufficiency in service record, which was also not commu.1icated to him is bad and arbitrary. It was further alleged by the petitioner that by promotion order dated 27th August, 1993 one Sri A.P. Tiwari has been promoted to the Middle Manager Grade/ Scale -II but still the case of the petitioner has not been considered for promotion.