Gujarat High Court
M vs Union on 18 March, 2009
Author: R.M.Doshit
Bench: R.M.Doshit
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/517/2009 4/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 517 of 2009
=====================================================
M
O AVIRA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 4 - Respondent(s)
=====================================================
Appearance
:
Petitioner in Person.
MR DC
SEJPAL, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1
5.
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 18/03/2009
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14th August, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal ), the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner had joined the service under the respondents in the year 1972 as Mazdoor. While in service, he acquired B.A. and LL.B. Degrees in the year 1977 and 1982 respectively. In the year 1986 he approached the Tribunal in Original Application No.459/1986 to challenge the appointment of 5 persons as Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade-II made in the year 1983. According to the petitioner, he was qualified for being appointed as Supervisor - Barrack and Stores Grade-II. Nevertheless, his case was not considered nor was he informed about available vacancies. The Tribunal rejected the claim by its judgment and order dated 24th April, 1988.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by its order dated 15th March, 1993 allowed the claim of the petitioner to the extent ...We direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for the post of Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade II, against an available vacancy in accordance with the rules and subject to his being eligible. Since the said direction, the petitioner once again approached the Tribunal in Original Application No.215/1994. Before the Tribunal, he conceded that he was not eligible for promotion as Supervisor - Barrack and Stores Grade-II but his case ought to be considered for direct appointment. In the submission of the petitioner, his appointment should relate back to the vacancy available in the year 1983. The said contention was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, by its judgment and order dated 29th January, 1999 directed the respondents to consider whether any vacancy existed on 15-3-93, the date of the Supreme Court order or whether any vacancy arose soon thereafter. After ascertaining the actual position in this regard and if such vacancy was available, the department shall consider the applicant for the same for appointment on regular basis from 15-3-93 or any date soon thereafter when the vacancy arose.
It may be noted here that pending the above referred Original Application No.215/1994 pursuant to the interim order made by the Tribunal, the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade-II on 31st January, 1996. Pursuant to the above referred direction issued by the Tribunal in the year 1999 and after a round of litigations before this Court in Special Civil Application Nos.1498/1998 & 19798/2006 and before the Tribunal in Original Application No.6/2005, the petitioner's appointment as Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade-II was made retrospective with effect from 1993 as directed. Since his appointment as Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade-II, the petitioner passed the departmental examination in the year 2002. After passing the said examination, in the year 2003 he was promoted as Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade-I. The petitioner's request to treat his promotion retrospective from the year 1999 came to be rejected.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in above referred Original Application No.340/2007. The said application has been dismissed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the present petition.
The petitioner Mr.Avira has appeared in person. He has submitted that a wrong was committed in not appointing the petitioner as Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade-II in the year 1983 when he was eligible for such appointment and the vacancy was available. Instead, five persons who were not even eligible for such appointment had been selected and appointed as Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade-II. It was only after several litigations that the petitioner came to be appointed as Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade-II. Once again, after couple of rounds of litigations the petitioner's appointment as Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade-II was backdated as on 15th March, 1993, the date of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If that is the date of his appointment, he would have passed the departmental examinations in the year 1999 and would have been promoted as Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade-I. It was the action/inaction of the respondents which prevented the petitioner from taking the departmental examinations earlier. Hence, the petitioner's promotion as Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade-I requires to be backdated to 1999.
We are unable to agree with Mr.Avira. It is not in dispute that for promotion as Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade-I he was required to pass departmental examinations. He passed the departmental examination for promotion in the year 2002. Prior to the year 2002, he was not eligible for promotion as Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade-I. Any claim for seniority or appointment as Supervisor Barrack and Stores Grade-I prior to his acquiring the qualification is misconceived and has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal.
No case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed in limine. Notice is discharged.
(M.D.Shah,
J.) (Ms.R.M.Doshit, J.)
/moin
Top