High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ashok Kumar Dubey v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Others - WRIT - A No. 43540 of 2002  RD-AH 492 (4 December 2003)
COURT NO. 34
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO 43540 OF 2002
Ashok Kumar Dubey ----- Petitioner
The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Allahabad & ors. ----- Respondents.
Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble M.A.Khan, J.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 9th August, 2002 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dresser on merit as well as on the ground of delay.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner claims to have joined the Railways on compassionate employment on 22.4.1982. He stood upgraded as Senior Hospital Attendant vide order dated 20.5.1994. He claims that he has been working as a Dresser in Northern Railway since 2nd July, 1989 and he appeared in the test for promotion on the said post of Dresser. Other persons had been given promotion, but petitioner had been denied the benefit of promotion. Petitioner made representations on 13th January, 1997 and 17.1.1997. As no decision was taken, he filed the application before the Tribunal, which has been rejected. Hence this petition.
Shri Suraj Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as petitioner had been working as a Dresser in the hospital since 2nd July, 1989 and he has wrongly been denied the promotion and the learned Tribunal did not consider the case in proper prospective, the learned Tribunal has committed an error dismissing the petition being time barred, and if the Tribunal considered it proper to reject the case on ground of limitation, it could not have interfered with on merit. Therefore, the judgment and order impugned is liable to be set aside.
Admittedly, the petitioner had not yet been promoted as a Dresser. He appeared in the test held for the said post. On 20.9.1996 vide letter dated 7.4.1997 (CA5) petitioner had been informed that he failed in the test for promotion on the post of Dresser held on 20.9.1996, and there is no material on record to show or doubting the veracity of the said letter dated 7.4.1997. In absence of any allegation of mala fide against any person and impleading any one by the bald statemnt that he has illegally been denied the benefit of promotion cannot be accepted. More so, we fail to understand if the petitioner stood upgraded as the Senior Hospital Attendant on 20.5.1994, how could he claim the promotion of higher post of Dresser w.e.f. 2.7.1989.
In view of the above, the Tribunal has rightly held that he cannot claim promotion for the reason that he could not succeed in the test held on 20.9.1996 for the said post of Dresser. There is a difference in working on a post and being employed on a post by promotion. Petitioner may be working or might have been asked by the respondent to work as a Dresser, that does not give him a right to promotion on the said post.
So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, it becomes irrelevant totally for the reason that if the test for the said post of Dresser was not held on 20.9.1996 petitioner cannot claim promotion prior to that date. We are of the considered opinion that the issue of limitation is not worth probing.
We see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.