Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 662 (RAJ)

Pramod Goyal v. Union of India

2016-05-10

J.K.RANKA, M.N.BHANDARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order date.23.01.2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur, on an Original Application preferred by the applicant-petitioner herein. 2. The Original Application was filed to challenge the order date.08.09.2008. It is stated that in pursuance of the recommendation of the review DPC, the promotions were given to the petitioner and others for the relevant vacancy years. The claim of the petitioner was for promotion to the post of Head Clerk for a year earlier to the year of promotion assigned to him. 3. It is also submitted that petitioner is a disabled person thus was required to be assigned seniority corresponding to the roster point meant for disabled persons. While considering the case of the petitioner in review DPC, he was compared with one Shri Ghisa Lal (ST candidate) for assigning seniority. The consideration was in ignorance of roster points meant for promotion to the post of Head Clerk. The petitioner was having a claim of promotion on the roster point meant for disabled candidate and it was falling prior to the roster point for ST candidate. If Ghisa Lal was also recommended for promotion to the post of Head Clerk against the vacancy year 1993-94, petitioner should have been placed higher in the seniority viz-a-viz Shri Ghisa Lal. The promotion and seniority should have been corresponding to roster point meant for different categories of candidates. Due to ignorance of the roster point meant for disabled persons, while granting promotion to the petitioner on the post of Head Clerk against the vacancy year 1993-94, Shri Ghisa Lal was placed above petitioner though roster point meant for ST candidate was subsequent to the roster point meant for disabled person. The prayer is accordingly made to set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and allow the prayer made by the petitioner-applicant. The petitioner should be assigned seniority above Ghisa Lal on the post of Head Clerk against the vacancy year 1993-94 with consequential benefits of promotion to the next post. 4. We have considered submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and scanned the record carefully. 5. The petitioner should be assigned seniority above Ghisa Lal on the post of Head Clerk against the vacancy year 1993-94 with consequential benefits of promotion to the next post. 4. We have considered submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and scanned the record carefully. 5. The question for our consideration is as to whether the roster point meant for various categories can have affect on seniority, if the promotion to different categories based on roster point is given in one and the same vacancy year. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner had not completed 5 years of required service for promotion to the post of Head Clerk prior to the year 1993-94. His case for promotion was considered in the review DPC. He was recommended for promotion against the vacancy year 1993-94. The issue of seniority has also been raised because petitioner is claiming seniority above Shri Ghisa Lal while giving promotion to them against the vacancy year 1993-94. It is on the ground that the petitioner was entitled for promotion against the roster point meant for disabled persons and the aforesaid roster point was prior to the roster point meant for Shri Ghisa Lal (ST candidate). 7. We are unable to accept the arguments made by the counsel for the petitioner. The roster point does not affect and change the seniority position. It can happen only when looking to the size of vacancies in the year of promotion, only few candidates are given promotion as per roster point leaving others. Those who are left-out and are given promotion in the subsequent year, then definitely the person given promotion in the earlier year would march over those who are promoted subsequently. If the promotion is given against the same year's vacancy, then the roster point entitles right of consideration for promotion and if the candidate is found suitable and recommended for promotion, he would get the promotion by not seniority in reference to the roster point. The seniority of the candidate given promotion in the same year would be assigned keeping in mind the seniority on the lower post. In the instant case, admittedly, Shri Ghisa Lal(ST) was senior to the petitioner on the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC). He was given promotion along with the petitioner on the post of Head Clerk against the vacancy year 1993-94. In the instant case, admittedly, Shri Ghisa Lal(ST) was senior to the petitioner on the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC). He was given promotion along with the petitioner on the post of Head Clerk against the vacancy year 1993-94. In view of above, if the review DPC recommended higher seniority to Shri Ghisa Lal, we do not find any illegality therein. 8. The Tribunal has taken a proper view on the issue raised before it. We are not required to discuss the issue as to whether the petitioner was entitled for promotion on the post of Head Clerk prior to the year 1993-94 as is not being pressed for want of required length of 5 years service. So far as consequential promotions to the higher posts are concerned, it is to be regulated by the seniority on the post of Head Clerk. Shri Ghisa Lal was assigned higher seniority thus he was considered for further promotion in accordance with law. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the order of the Tribunal. In the result, writ petition is dismissed.