AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Markandey Katju, C.J.—This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 27.06.2003 passed in
W.P. No. 14520 of 1995.
We have carefully perused the impugned order and heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant was only a temporary employee as
stated in paragraph - 6 of the impugned order. It is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to post, vide State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, . It appears that an interview was held for the purpose of regularisation, but as stated in paragraph 7 of the
impugned order the petitioner/appellant was not found fit while others we re found fit.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant was senior to those who were regularised. In our opinion, there is no absolute rule
that a senior must be first promoted or first regularised before his juniors. It often happens that th nior is incompetent or dull or lacking in integrity
whereas his juniors may be very bright and competent and upright. At any event, this is for the concerned authority to decide and not for this
Court. We cannot give a premium to seniority overriding intelligence, hardwork, competence and honesty. Seniority alone is not the sole guiding
criteria in these matters. There are various considerations for the concerned authority for granting regularisation or selection. This Court cannot sit
as a court of appeal over administrative decisions. It can only interfere if there is violation of law or on Wednesbury principles, vide Tata Cellular
Vs. Union of India, , Rama Muthuramalingam, State Propaganda Committee Member Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others, and
anunre ported judgment of this Court dated 07.04.2005 passed in W.A. No. 520 of 2005 (Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Anr. v. Bharathiya
Electricity Employees Federation). The writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected W.A.M.P. No. 1172 of 2005 is closed.