High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Kishori Lal Sandhu v. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Nati - RA-8-2007  RD-P&H 705 (19 January 2007)
RA No.8 of 2007 in
C.W.P. No.12328 of 2006
Date of decision:19.1.2007
Kishori Lal Sandhu
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Fertilizers Ltd. and others .....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Nijjar
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Present: Mr. Charanjit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.
By an order dated 10.8.2006, the writ petition filed by the applicant was dismissed. The applicant has now filed the present application in terms of Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC' for short) and Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking review of the said order.
We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. The applicant has primarily reiterated the contentions as were considered by this Court while dismissing his writ petition on 10.8.2006.
The petitioner is again claiming that he was entitled to promotion to the post of Senior Technician in August 2001 along with his co-employee Surjit RA No.8 of 2007 in
Singh (respondent No.4). It is submitted that in the interview conducted by the Departmental Promotion Committee (`DPC' for short), the petitioner has been denied promotion even though Surjit Singh (respondent No.4) was younger in age to him. In fact, the contention regarding age has now been raised in the review application. In the order passed by this Court on 10.8.2006, it was noticed that the applicant and Surjit Singh (respondent No.4) were appointed as Technicians Grade-III (Lab.) on successful completion of apprenticeship of one year w.e.f. 6.2.1996. Thereafter, they were promoted as Technician Grade-II (Lab.) with effect from 6.8.1997 and then as Technician Grade-I (Lab.) w.e.f. 6.8.1998. However, Surjit Singh (respondent No.4) was senior to the petitioner as per panel drawn by the DPC. The post of Senior Technician was a merit post wherein the applicant was also given due opportunity to compete with others. The DPC after considering the merit of each candidate recommended the names of those who were senior to the applicant in order of merit. The name of the applicant was not recommended by the DPC and Surjit Singh (respondent No.4) was promoted as Senior Technician w.e.f. 1.2.2002.
The petitioner has referred to Rule 29 of the statutory rules of the National Fertilizers Limited. The said rules relate to penalties. It is contended that withholding of promotion has amounted to imposition of penalty. We see the same to be wholly unjustified as the case of the petitioner for promotion has been considered and declined by the DPC. The question of withholding of promotion as a measure of punishment is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Another contention that has been raised is that the petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste RA No.8 of 2007 in
category and one Mit Singh who retired on 31.12.2001 from the post of Senior Technician was also a member of the reserve category. Therefore, after his retirement the post vacated by him was to be filled by a member of the Scheduled Caste category. In our order dated 10.8.2006, it was noticed that Mit Singh was plotted at point No.1 meant for unreserved category and he was holding the post of unreserved category and the said post when it fell vacant was meant for unreserved category. The petitioner, in fact, does not have an indefeasible right of promotion. It is well known that no employee has a right to promotion but he has only a right to be considered for promotion according to the statutory rules. Chances of promotion are not conditions of service and are defeasible. The petitioner has been duly considered for promotion and, therefore, cannot be said to have any grouse in that regard. The position as regards diversification of vacancies and denial of removal of anomaly has also been considered in our order dated 10.8.2006.
The applicant under the pretext of filing a review application is not entitled to re-hearing of the writ petition and alteration of the order passed by this Court because it is not to his liking. The scope of review of an order is very limited and in terms of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is permissible where from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed or on account of some mistakes or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reasons. The expression "any other sufficient reasons" as provided in terms of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been RA No.8 of 2007 in
held in Mohan Mar Basselios Chatholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 must mean a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule. Besides, it has not been shown by the applicant whether the order passed by this Court has resulted in any miscarriage of justice which may have necessitated a recall of the same.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed.
January 19, 2007. (S.S. Saron)
Whether fit for indexing: Yes/No
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.