Sahraj Sab vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was appointed as Khallasi in the Department of Telecom (Dot) on 18.11.1978. Initially, he was working in Meerut Division and in the year 1998, was transferred to Ghaziabad Division.

It is stated that a seniority list for the post of Khallasi was drawn in the year 1992 and the applicant figured at SI. No.3, and that in the year 1998, DoT initiated steps for appointment to the post of Assistant Pump Operator (APO) and willingness of the persons from the lower grades, i.e., Khallasi was called for.

The applicant contends that the office in which he was working, did not receive such communication and when he came to know about it, he made a representation to the Sub Divisional Officer, Ghaziabad, on 02.08.1999, but the latter observed that he did not receive any such communication in his office.

The applicant states that on 25.01.2000, two of his juniors, namely Sh. Virender Kumar Gupta and Sh. Raj Bali, were promoted to the post of APO, whereas he was not promoted. The applicant is said to have made representations dated 28.08.2001, 08.10.2001 and 04.10.2001, but no action was taken thereon. In this background, the applicant filed this OA with a prayer to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his case for promotion to the post of APO, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion to that post from the date on which his junior was promoted, with all consequential benefits.

The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating that all the activities of Telecom were made over to the BSNL, i.e., the 2 nd respondent and it has no role to play.

The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating that the DPC that was constituted in the year 2000 considered the cases of all such Khallasi and other candidates who gave option and since the applicant did not give his option, he was not considered. It is also stated that nothing can be done at this stage.

We heard Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Manjeet Singh Reen and Ms. Sangita Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.

It is no doubt true that the applicant is fairly senior in the category of Khallasi as is evident from the seniority list. While he figured at SI. No.3, two other candidates that were selected for the post of APO are at SI. Nos. 10 and 12. We, however, do not have the recruitment rules before us. It is not known as to whether the promotion to the post of APO was on the basis of seniority alone or on giving option. The very fact, that the two selected candidates were those who were at SI. No.10 and 12, discloses that they gave option and others did not.

In case the applicant felt that he was denied the opportunity of giving his option, he was expected to pursue the remedy immediately after the appointment was made in the year 1999. He did make a representation to Sub Divisional Officer and thereafter filed two representations in the year 2001. However, he did not pursue the matter thereafter. The possibility for us to examine whether notional promotion can be granted to the applicant does not exist because we do not have before us, the relevant recruitment rules. Unless the recruitment rules provide for promotion purely on the basis of seniority and the applicant was wrongly denied the promotion, we cannot grant the relief. At any rate, two decades have elapsed since the concerned promotion had taken place and the applicant is also no more in service.

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