Sita
Ram Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Anr [2007] Insc 980 (26 September 2007)
Tarun
Chatterjee & P. Sathasivam
O R D
E R [Arising out of SLP {C} No.11875 of 2005]
1.
Delay condoned.
2.
Leave granted.
3.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated
2nd of November, 2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C. No.9602 of 2004.
4. At
the relevant point of time, the appellant was working as an officiating Vice
Principal in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan [for short 'the Sangathan']. After
retirement, he made representations before the authorities for consideration of
his prayer for promotion to the post of Principal in the Sangathan. An approach
was made before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, [for short 'the Tribunal] for a
direction to the authorities to consider the said prayer of the appellant.
By an
order, the Tribunal directed the authorities to consider his prayer for
promotion to the said post of Principal. The representation filed by the
appellant was considered and rejected by the authorities against which, the
Tribunal was approached again which rejected the prayer of the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved, a writ petition was moved before the High Court which also
affirmed the order of the Tribunal. The present appeal by grant of special has
been preferred against the aforesaid order of the High Court.
5.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going
through the materials on record, including the order passed by the Tribunal and
the impugned order dismissing the writ petition, we do not find any ground to
interfere with the impugned order of the High Court in the exercise of our
power under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is not in dispute that while
the appellant was in service, he did not raise any objection for not selecting
him for promotion to the post of Principal in the Sangathan. Challenge was made
by the appellant only after his retirement. The Tribunal, while rejecting his
prayer for promotion to the post of Principal in the Sangathan, on
consideration of the material on record, held that no irregularity or
illegality was committed by the Selection Committee while considering his
prayer for promotion as Principal in the Sangathan. In the impugned order, the
High Court concurred with the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant had
failed to point out any violation of the statutory rules or Article 14 of the
Constitution by denial of promotion to him. The High Court also held that only
because a different view could be taken, it was no ground to reconsider the
matter as urged on behalf of the appellant. We do not find any reason to
interfere with these findings of the High Court or the Tribunal mainly on the
ground that the Tribunal was approached by the appellant after his retirement
from service and even while in service, the appellant had not challenged his supersession
by other junior members.
6. Since
the appellant had already retired and in view of the findings of the High Court,
with which we are in full agreement, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order of the High Court.
The
appeal, thus, fails. There will be not order as to costs.
Back