Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2021) 02 CAT CK 0032

Rakesh Gaurana vs Secretary, Ministry Of Jal Shakti (Ministry Of Water Resources) & Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 3 February 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 227 Of 2021, Miscellaneous Application No. 265 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 363 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The applicant joined the service of Central Water Commission as Design Assistant on 20.04.1987. Thereafter, he was promoted as Extra Assistant

Director Class-II on 28.11.1990. The next promotion is to the post of Assistant Director. This is on the basis of the selection. The respondents issued

an order dated 30.04.2008 promoting the applicant and 18 others to the post of Assistant Director on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC.

This OA is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to treat the promotion of the applicant to the post of Assistant Director w.e.f. 01.04.2007.

2.

The applicant contends that the DPC did not meet for quite some years and the vacancies referable to various panel years preceding 2007

remained unfilled. He submits that the standing in the post of Assistant Director becomes necessary for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and

in that view of the matter it became necessary to seek the relief, as above.

3.

We heard Ms. Richa Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vijendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

4.

The promotion of the applicant to the post of Assistant Director took place way back on 30.04.2008. From the words employed therein, it is evident

that the promotion is prospective, in operation. In case the applicant had any objection to that, he was expected to pursue the remedies at the relevant

point of time. Further, it is fairly well settled that no promotion can be ordered retrospectively, particularly, when the selection process is involved. The

only exception is where a junior to an officer is with effect from an earlier date and the senior was denied promoted at the relevant point of time. Such

is not the case here. Even if, there existed large number of vacancies, the fact remains that an employee would have only a right to be considered for

promotion, as and when it takes place, and has no right to be promoted, as such.

5.

We do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending MA No.265/2021 shall stand disposed of.