Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2364 (RAJ)

Niranjan Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal

2005-09-06

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA, Y.R.MEENA

body2005
Judgment P.S. Asopa, J.-By the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 111.2000 (in short CAT) passed in two original applications filed by petitioner whereby both the original applications relating to the regularization on the post of Junior Clerk and for consequential promotion on the post of Senior Clerk and Head Clerk have been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are:- (a) that in Original Application No. 633/1994 the petitioner prayed that he be promoted on the post of clerk at least w.e.f. 26.01.1981 or prior to it and thereafter to the post of Senior Clerk and Head Clerk w.e.f. 11.09.1989 and 110.1994. (b) that in Original Application No. 88/1996 the petitioner has challenged the order dated 012.1995 and 212.1995 whereby the order dated 12.07.1994 was amended and the year of appointment of the applicant has been changed from 012.1969 to 24.09.1990. (c) It would not be out of place to mention here that prior to the filing of aforesaid two original applications, the petitioner has filed a civil suit against the illegal cancellation of the panel declared in the year 1985 wherein he has claimed himself to be passed. The said civil suit was transferred in the CAT as Transfer Application No. 44/1992 (Old TA No. 683/1986) and the said transfer application was decided on 19.01.1994 wherein CAT refused to entertain the controversy about the cancellation of the selection list of the year 1985. However, considering the fact that there was no fault on the part of the applicant, if the respondent failed to conduct the select test for 16 years, the applicant cannot be asked to suffer for the same. Hence, ultimately a direction was issued to consider the case of regularization of the applicant from earlier date and necessary order should be passed in compliance to which the order dated 12.07.1994 (Annexure-2) was passed regularizing the service of the petitioner as clerk w.e.f. 012.1969 which was cancelled and further revised vide order dated 012.1995. 3. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner passed a selection for the grade of Junior Clerk in the year 1990 which was rightly given from 24.09.1990. 3. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner passed a selection for the grade of Junior Clerk in the year 1990 which was rightly given from 24.09.1990. The respondents have also supported the Judgment passed by the CAT wherein a finding has been recorded to the effect that the petitioner cannot be given benefit of regularization w.e.f. 012.1969 and his regularization w.e.f. 24.09.1990 based on his clearing the selection test, was valid being in consonance with Rules, he obviously cannot be promoted to the post of clerk w.e.f. 26.01.1981 as prayed in Original Application No. 633/1994 and also not entitled to further promotion based on his claimed regularization w.e.f. 012.1969. .4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Judgment in the transfer application (Supra), was rightly implemented and there is no reason to revise/amend the same. Per contra, the submission of the Counsel for the respondents is that the order dated 12.07.1994 was rightly amended vide order dated 012.1995 as the regularization can only be made after passing the test and not before it, therefore, order dated 012.1995 is perfectly legal and justified. 5. The relevant portion of the Judgment of the CAT is reproduced as under:- 9. In view of the above discussions and the law laid down by Honble the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant cannot extend any help to the applicant. We have also carefully considered the pleadings made in OA No. 633/1994 but since we have arrived at the finding that the applicant cannot be given the benefit of regularisation w.e.f. 012.1969 (when he was appointed on ad-hoc basis) and that his regularisation w.e.f. 24.09.1990 based on his clearing the prescribed selection procedure was valid, being in consonance with rules, he obviously cannot be promoted to the post of clerk w.e.f. 26.01.1981 as prayed in OA No. 633/1994 and also not entitled to further promotion based on his claimed regularisation w.e.f. 012.1969. The prayers made by the applicant in both the OAS are, therefore, not sustainable in law and are, therefore, rejected. 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and Judgment of the CAT and further carefully examined the documents available on the record. 7. The prayers made by the applicant in both the OAS are, therefore, not sustainable in law and are, therefore, rejected. 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and Judgment of the CAT and further carefully examined the documents available on the record. 7. The Tribunal has rightly given the finding of the regularisation which can only be made after passing the test. The test was passed in the year 1990, therefore, the services of the applicant were rightly regularised vide order dated 24.09.1990. From 24.09.1990 the petitioner is entitled for consequential benefits of further promotion to the post of Clerk/Senior Clerk and Head Clerk. It appears that the petitioner has now retired from service and has claimed all the benefits from 012.1969 for which he is not entitled. 8. We are of the view of the CAT has not committed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, no interference is called for, therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.