RAM LALIT KANNAUJIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is holding the post of Senior Accounts Officer in the office of Directorate General of Mines Safety, Dhanbad and he was holding the said post since 25th November, 1997. His grievance is that the post of Director (Administration) is not filled up since last more than about ten years though, it was advertised in the year 2002 for the purpose of filling up of that post and again in the year 2006 another advertisement was issued. In spite of that advertisements, according to Learned Counsel for the petitioner the post of Director (Administration) is occupied by ad hoc arrangements and regular promotion is not given. The petitioner's contention was that he was eligible candidate for that post. However, O.A. No. 130 of 2006 was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi vide order dated 24th August, 2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that instead of issuing direction to the Union of India to take steps for filling up the vacancy and consider the candidature of the writ petitioner, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) proceeded to decide about the eligibility of the petitioner whereas that was not the issue. It is submitted that the said issue could be framed only when process of filling up the post by way of promotion as per the Rule is taken by the respondent-employer. According to Learned Counsel for the petitioner he was eligible as per the mode prescribed by the respondents themselves for giving promotion in regular manner by promoting or even by transfer on deputation which is also another mode prescribed by the respondents themselves. However, now the issue aggravated because of passing of more time from 2007. As by now five years more have passed still the post is being occupied by the person who have been given promotion by ad hoc arrangement and that too for the post of Director (Administration).

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Union of India tried to justify the order passed by the Tribunal. But so far as holding of post of Director (Administration) for such a long period cannot be justified. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take the process of appointment of Director (Administration) within a period of six months from today so that post may be offered to an eligible candidate. We are making it clear that we have not decided about the eligibility of the writ petitioner and we have not decided about the feeder cadre from where the persons can be promoted to the post of Director (Administration). Since it was not a issue before the Tribunal also, any observation of the Tribunal shall not be relevant for the purpose of implementing of this order that is giving promotion by following the rules and therefore while giving promotion the respondents shall follow the rules strictly and if the petitioner is found eligible then his case may also be considered. The writ petition of the writ petitioner is accordingly disposed of.