Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

H.P. GUPTA versus THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLD. BENCH & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


H.P. Gupta v. The Central Administrative Tribunal Alld. Bench & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 46980 of 2003 [2007] RD-AH 10134 (25 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

"Reserved on 12.04.2007.

Delivered on ...................

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46980 of 2003.

H. P. Gupta

Versus

The Central Administrative Tribunal,

Allahabad Bench, Allahabad and others.

..............

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 3rd June, 2002, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), dismissing his O.A. No. 140 of 1996 has come up in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The facts of the present case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Sorter Assistant in Railway Mail Service, Gorakhpur on 16th December, 1963.  He qualified RMS examination and started working as an Accountant up to 13th August, 1981.  In the meanwhile he also qualified for lower selection grade in 1976, but was not promoted on account of non availability of the vacancies.  The Respondent no. 3 issued an order dated 11th October, 1991 directing that those who have passed this examination earlier will have to re-appear in their turn in seniority, in view of para 4 of D.O. Letter no. 6/2/79-SPB-II dated 21st October, 1981 and therefore claim of those officials for promotion to lower selection grade is not maintainable.  The petitioner thereafter made representation against the order dated 11th October, 1991 and since it was not decided, approached Tribunal in O.A. No. 493 of 1994, which was disposed of vide order dated 12th April, 1994 directing concerned authorities to decide his representation.  Consequently the then Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow vide its order dated 6th March, 1995 rejected representation of the petitioner.  Assailing the order dated 6th March, 1995 and 11th October, 1991, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 140 of 1996, which has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order impugned in this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred by assuming that the petitioner belongs to accounts line, which is contrary to Rule 272-A.  It is further contended that he has qualified selection test and therefore was entitled for promotion in lower selection grade cadre, but was illegally denied promotion and for the fault of the respondents, the petitioner could not have been made to suffer by requiring to re-appear in the qualifying selection test again in order to get promotion.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.  Rule 272-A, which is admittedly applicable in the present case, reads as under :-

"272-A. (i) Promotion, whether acting or permanent, to the lower selection grade in the General line in Circle Office, Telegraph Traffic, Telegraph Engineering (including stores and Workshops but excluding Telephone Monitors) and Wireless is made normally in order of seniority but the appointing authority may, in his discretion, pass over any senior official whom he does not consider fit for such promotion.

(ii) In Post offices, Returned Letter Offices, Railway Mail service, Foreign Post and the Telephone Monitors' cadre in Telephone Exchanges, promotions to 2/3rds of the Lower Selection Grade posts in the General Line are to be regulated on the same principle but the remaining 1/3rd posts are to be filled on the basis of selection.  The General Line excludes Sub-Divisional Inspectors Postal (including Investigating Inspectors) and Sub-Divisional Inspectors of Railway Mail Service and Office Supervisors, Office of Superintendents of Post Offices and Railway Mail Service, the rules for promotion to whose grades are given in Rule 279.1 below.

NOTE.----In Post Offices, Returned Letter Offices, Railway Mail Service, Foreign Post and telephone Monitors' cadre vacancies to the extent of 1/3 rd arising in each calendar year will be filled by selection till such time as 1/3 rd of the total posts in the cadre come to be held by officials taken on the basis of selection.  For this purpose a panel should be prepared each year on the basis of the following formula :-

(a) number of vacancies likely to occur in a calendar year including new posts to be sanctioned;

(b) 20 per cent of vacancies for unexpected casualties, and

(c) total of the above two items.

Great care should be exercised in calculating  the number of vacancies.  If any official already in the panel has not been absorbed during the year, he will be absorbed first in the vacancies of the next year and the vacancies for the next year will be correspondingly reduced by the number of approved officials brought forward.  Persons to be appointed on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness will en bloc rank senior to those to be appointed by selection in one calendar year.

After 1/3 rd of the total posts in the cadre are held by officials taken on the basis of selection, vacancies arising by retirement, promotion etc. of officials originally appointed on the basis of seniority would be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and those arising by retirement, promotion etc. of officials taken by selection would be filled on the basis of selection.  The position should be reviewed at the beginning of each year and anticipated vacancies calculated accordingly.  Cases of officials considered but overlooked should be reviewed when next selection is made."

Clause (i)  of Rule 272-A provides for promotion of the persons working in general line in Circle Office, Telegraph Traffic, Telegraph Engineering (including Stores and Workshops but excluding Telephone Monitors). Clause (ii) of Rule 272-A provides that 2/3 of the vacancies of lower selection grade post in general line shall be filled in by normal course of promotion and remaining 1/3 of vacancies on the basis of selection.  For the purpose of selection for the appointment in clause (ii) it provides that a panel shall be prepared each year on the basis of the vacancies likely to occur in a calendar year, including  new post to be sanctioned and 20 per cent of the vacancies for unexpected casualties.  2/3 vacancies are to be filled in on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness.    Thus from a perusal of Rule 272-A, it is clear that it does not make employees working in accounts line eligible for promotion to lower selection grade.  Though learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that the Tribunal wrongly treated him as belong to accounts line, but could not place any material to show  that the said finding of the Tribunal is perverse or incorrect.  From Annexure-2 of the writ petition at page 24 is the result whereby the petitioner was declared successful in the qualifying examination against 1/3 quota of higher grade selection held on 30th November, 1975. There he is shown to belong to Railway Mail Service Accounts wing, which is reproduced as under :-

U.P. CIRCLE :

RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE 'ACCOUNTS WING'

3. UP/RMS/Acctt-4/75 Sri Hari Pd. Gupta, 'G' Divn."

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not place any material on record to contradict the fact that he does not belong to Accounts wing.  In the circumstances, Rule 272-A in the case in hand would have no application and the petitioner's promotion therefore has to be regulated in accordance with the provision applicable to the principles of Accounts wing and the vacancies in lower selection grade in the Accounts line.  We therefore did not find any error in the order impugned in the present writ petition passed by the Tribunal holding that Rule 272-A has no application in the present case.  That being so the order of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference.  No other point has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner.  This writ petition therefore lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed without there being any order as to costs.

Dated: 25.05.2007.

Rks.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.