Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANDRA BHUSAN DIXITY versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chandra Bhusan Dixity v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - A No. 37815 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11766 (19 July 2006)

 

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

Court No.37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.37815 of 2006

Chandra Bhusan Dixit v. Union of India and others

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.

(Delivered by R.K.Agrawal, J.)

By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs :-

"(1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 29.12.04, 2.9.05 and 28.3.06 (Annexure No.7, 10 and 12 respectively).

(2) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of A.M.M.

(3) issue any other suitable order or direction to this Hon'ble Court deems First Information Report and proper.

(4) award the cost."

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:-

The petitioner who was working as Chief Depot Material Superintendent at the Plant Depot, Moghal Sarai of East Central Railway, appeared for being considered for promotion on the post of the Assistant Material Manager, which is a selection post. He, however, failed to get the minimum qualifying marks in the viva voice examination conducted by the authorities. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Original Application No. 661 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad which, vide order dated 27.7.2005, while disposing of the Original Application at the admission stage, directed the respondents therein to decide the representation of the applicant within a period of three weeks. Pursuant to the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Chief Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Hazipur, vide order dated 20.9.2005, informed the petitioner that on final calculation of the marks allotted to him, it was found that he did not succeed to obtain the prescribed qualifying marks in viva voce and record for service and hence his name was not placed in the panel of Grade B against 70% quota. In respect of the 8th vacancy in unreserved category, he was informed that the result of one candidate has been kept in a sealed cover due to pendency of DAR case. The petitioner has been informed that he has not been found fit for promotion.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Original Application No.295 of 2006 which had been dismissed by the Tribunal at the admission stage itself vide order dated 26.3.2006. The Tribunal has held that as the petitioner has failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce, he is not entitled to claim promotion.

We have heard Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the selection process was initiated on 5.7.2004 and the petitioner had been promoted on the post of the Chief Depot Material Superintendent on 18.8.2004 after qualifying in viva voce and record of service. Thus, he could not have been disqualified on the basis of not having secured minimum marks in the viva voce examination conducted for the post of the Assistant Material Manager.

The submission is misconceived. Merely because the petitioner has been promoted on the post of the Chief Depot Material Superintendent in the month of August, 2004 after appearing in the viva voce examination, it does not ipso facto mean that he is qualified in all the subsequent viva voce examination. The Interview Board judges the merit of the candidates including the personality in the viva voce examination held specifically for a particular post and if the Board does not find the candidate fit or awards the marks which is lesser than the minimum qualifying marks, the person cannot claim promotion on the basis of the interview held for some other post.

So far as the contention that the petitioner has not been informed about the marks obtained in the viva voce examination concerned, we direct the respondent no.2 to intimate the marks obtained by the petitioner in the viva voce examination and the record of service within two months from the date the petitioner makes an application before the said authority.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is dismissed.

19.7.2006

vkp


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.