Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJESH KUMAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MIN. OF RAILWAYS & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajesh Kumar Singh v. Union Of India Through Secretary Min. Of Railways & Others - WRIT - A No. 27431 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 5369 (26 March 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

Hon.V.M.Sahai, J

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.1.2001 passed by respondent No.5 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and further a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner.

It has been submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on 11.3.1987 as Traffic Apprenticeship on the grade of Rs.1400-2300 and the petitioner was confirmed on 22.8.1988.  After completion of the training the petitioner has made request to the higher authorities that as he has completed his full training of traffic  apprenticeship, therefore,  he may be appointed on the post of Traffic Inspector.  In terms of the Railway Board Circular dated 11.12.1993 the  respondents Nos. 6 to 8 have been promoted on the post of Traffic Inspector ignoring the claim of the petitioner.  In view of the said circular dated 11.12.1993 the qualification for direct recruitment on the post of traffic inspector was prescribed by which the petitioner was fully eligible to be promoted under 15% quota from serving staff. An option to that effect was called for and the petitioner has also given his option vide letter dated 2.8.1989.  The petitioner has made request to the  respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for promotion on the post of traffic inspector under  15% quota to be given to the petitioner vide its letter dated 30.3.1993.  The petitioner submitted a representation and it was informed to the petitioner that as no post is available and as and when the post will be available he will be promoted.  The petitioner made several representations  from 1993 onwards but no action has been taken by the respondents.  Then the petitioner has filed an original application  before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was numbered as Original Application No. 1397 of 2000 which has illegally been dismissed on the ground  that as the petitioner has approached the Tribunal after a very belated stage, therefore, the promotions which have already been made they are not to be disturbed.

It has been submitted by Sri S.C.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner that one A.P.Singh has filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal and he was granted relief vide its judgment and order dated 1st February, 1990.  In such a situation, the petitioner is also entitled for the same.

After hearing counsel for the parties, as the original application has been filed claiming the relief of promotion on the ground that juniors to the petitioner have been promoted and the Tribunal has recorded a finding that promotion granted to the juniors in the next grade could not be disturbed  at such belated stage and the claim of the petitioner is grossly barred by limitation. The judgement of the Tribunal relied by the petitioner does not support the petitioner. The petition was filed in the year 1984 and was decided in the year 1990.  Admittedly, from the year 1990, up to 2000, the petitioner has not approached the Court.  It was only in the year 2000, the petitioner claims that junior person to the petitioner has been promoted.  There is no explanation in the writ petition or in the original application filed before the Tribunal.  The promotional post of the petitioner is a selection post on which selection is made on the basis of written examination and interview.

The tribunal has recorded a finding that the claim of the petitioner is highly barred by limitation in view of the provision of Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, we find no merit in the writ petition.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.        

 

26.3.2007

SKD

W.P.No.27431/2001      


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.