AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madan B. Lokur, J.—The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21st August, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1921/2007.
The Petitioner was appointed as a Head Constable in the Ambulance Wing of the Delhi Police. He was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on the death of one Sub Inspector Vinod Kumar. It may be noted that the Petitioner was found fit for promotion in the year 1988 and he was actually given his promotion on 29th August, 1988.
It appears that two Assistant Sub Inspectors had been sent on deputation with the Fingerprint Bureau. These two Assistant Sub-Inspectors were absorbed in the Fingerprint Bureau sometime in 1992. However, it appears that they approached the Tribunal for a change in their deemed date of appointment to the new post. The Tribunal had apparently decided the matter in favour of those two Assistant Sub Inspectors and they were deemed to have been appointed to the new post in the Fingerprint Bureau as on 29th December, 1987.
According to the Petitioner, as a result of the above, two vacancies in the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector had fallen vacant on 29th December, 1987 and that he should have been adjusted against one of these vacancies. Since this was not done, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal for relief.
The Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the case of the Petitioner after taking into consideration several factors, including the fact that the Petitioner was found fit for promotion in 1988 and, therefore, there was no question of his being promoted against a deemed vacancy that had arisen on 29th December, 1987. Moreover, in actual fact the two posts of Assistant Sub Inspector were not vacant on 29th December, 1987. It was only as a result of an order passed by the Tribunal that the vacancies were deemed to have arisen on the absorption of two Assistant Sub Inspectors in the Fingerprint Bureau. The Tribunal also noted that there was no obligation on the part of the Respondents to fill up the vacant post on the date it became vacant and, therefore, the Petitioner could not insist that he should be deemed to have been promoted with effect from 29th December, 1987. Finally, the Tribunal noted that the Petitioner had not suffered any loss in terms of seniority inasmuch as nobody junior to him had been promoted against any of the two deemed vacant posts on 29th December, 1987.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the submissions that he had made before the Tribunal but we are of the view that there is no merit in the contentions. The reasons accepted by the Tribunal, which we have indicated above, are quite cogent and they certainly justify the non-promotion of the Petitioner against the deemed vacancies as on 29th December, 1987.
Since there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal in its decision, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The writ petition is dismissed.