Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The name of the Respondent No. 6 was the first name in the list of prospective promotees, whereas the name of the appellant was the second name in the said list.

12. On 23rd April, 1999, the DPC considered the cases of the candidates for promotion to two posts of Assistant Engineers i.e., Assistant Engineer (E&M) and Assistant Engineer (Civil). The DPC found both the Respondent No. 6 and the appellant eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (E&M).

13. The Respondent No. 6 was, however, recommended for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (E&M) initially on ad hoc basis for six months and one Ashim Kumar Paul, Junior Engineer (Civil) was recommended for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil).

24. From the language and tenor of the representation dated 14th July, 2005, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition, it is crystal clear that the appellant was really irked by his transfer from the post of Assistant Engineer (E & M), Stores to the post of Assistant Engineer (E & M), Solid Waste Management.

25. On 18th August, 2005 the appellant moved the writ application being W.P. 126 of 2005 which has been disposed of by the Judgment and order under appeal. The appellant has challenged the promotion of the Respondent No. 6 as Assistant Engineer contending that the Respondent No. 6 had obtained appointment as Junior Engineer on the strength of a fake Diploma. The appellant further contended that even otherwise, the appellant being older in age, was senior to the Respondent No. 6.

26. Two affidavits were filed in opposition to the writ applications, one on belalf of the Respondent Council and the other on behalf of the Respondent No. 6 and the appellant filed his Affidavits-in-Reply thereto.

27. As a counterblast to the writ petition, the Respondent No. 6 has, in his Affidavit in Opposition thrown a challenge to the appointment of the appellant as Junior Engineer on the ground that only one vacancy having been declared and names having been requisitioned from the Employment Exchange for one vacancy, two Junior Engineers could not have been appointed. The appointment of the appellant is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

30. The main issues involved are (i) whether the diploma on the basis of which the Respondent No. 6 was appointed can be said to be fake; (ii) whether the appointment of the Respondent No. 6 as Assistant Engineer (M & E) on promotion is liable to be set aside on the ground of his obtaining appointment as Junior Engineer on the strength of a diploma in Automobile Engineering from an institution not recognized by the AICTE; (iii) whether the appellant has disentitled himself to the reliefs claimed by reason of the delay in approaching this Court and (iv) whether the appointment of the appellant is liable to be set aside, as claimed by the Respondent No. 6.