Allahabad High Court
Rajeshwar Prasad vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of ... on 11 August, 2025
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47027-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7382 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rajeshwar Prasad
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue, New Delhi And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kewal Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Heard the petitioner in person and Shri Anand Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 01.08.2023 passed in Original Application No. 254 of 2019 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The said O.A. has been dismissed. Being aggrieved, this petition has been filed.
The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner's claim of promotion to the post of Superintendent w.e.f. 2002 and to the post of Assistant Commissioner since 11.05.2018, from the date when his juniors Shri V.K. Tiwari and Shri M.C. Shukla had been promoted, was turned down initiallyby the official opposite partiesvide order dated 03.01.2018, and thereafter, vide order dated 14.11.2018, both of which were challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition, as already stated herein.
After hearing the petitioner, who appears in person, and the learned Counsel for the opposite parties what comes out is that the petitioner along with Shri V.K. Tiwari and Shri M.C. Shukla was initially appointed as Inspector, Bhopal Cadre Control Zone and they joined on 25.07.1985, 26.12.1985 and 24.03.1986 respectively. All the three applied for Inter Commissionerate transfer. Shri V.K. Tiwari and Shri M.C. Shukla were transferred from Bhopal Cadre Control Zone to Lucknow Cadre Control Zone prior to the petitioner and joined in the latter zone on 07.12.1987 and 01.02.1988. The petitioner was transferred subsequently to the Lucknow Cadre Control Zone and he joined in the later on 01.06.1991. The petitioner who appeared in person and is now a practicing Advocate admits the fact that on such transfer, the incumbents are placed at the bottom of the seniority list.Based on the aforesaid, as the joining of Shri V.K. Tiwari and Shri M.C. Shukla in the Lucknow Cadre Control Zone was prior to that of the petitioner, Shri Rajeshwar Prasad, even though he was senior in the Bhopal Cadre Control Zone became junior to the aforesaid in the Lucknow Cadre Control Zone. As regards, the benefit of the decision relied upon by the petitioner and rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of Shri Balwinder Singh Matharoo & others, the benefit of the same was extended to the petitioner and the past services were calculated for determining the qualifying service / eligibility of the petitioner for being considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent, however, the said was only relevant for the purposes of eligibility. After being eligible when he was placed in the zone of consideration, he would obviously be placed below Shri V.K. Tiwari and Shri M.C. Shukla for the reasons aforesaid.
At this stage it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner never raised any dispute with regard to being placed below Shri V.K. Tiwari and Shri M.C. Shukla in the seniority list of the Lucknow Cadre Control Zone or being treated as junior to them. Consequently, in spite of the fact that he was placed within the zone of consideration, he could not actually be promoted as Superintendent in July, 2002 because there were number of Inspectors within the zone of consideration who were senior to the petitioner in the Lucknow Zone and were placed above him, and the available vacancies were exhausted by promotion of such senior Inspectors and this is what has been noticed and observed by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner.
We see absolutely no error on the part of the opposite parties in this regard nor on the part of the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition. The petitioner has relied upon certain O.M.'sdated 27.03.2001 & 16.09.2022 which he has placed before us during course of argument, all of which relate to absorption and deputation which is not the case herein. Here it is not a case of deputation, but one of Inter Commissionerate transfer. None of the said OM's pertain to the said eventuality.
As regards, the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Renu Mullick Vs. Union of India & Another; (1994) 1 SCC 373upon which reliance was placed by the incumbents before the Tribunal which has been referred in its judgment, the petitioner appearing in person submitted that Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said decision have not been referred. He has invited our attention to Paragraph 11, 12 & 13 of the said decision, which according to him have not been noticed. Having gone through the said paragraphs we see no reason to change our opinion as expressed hereinabove, as, it is not in doubt that after counting the past services rendered in another Commissionerate, the petitioner was also eligible for being considered for promotion, and that is how the opposite parties treated him and considered him for promotion by placing him in the zone of consideration, but considering the number of vacancies which have not been disputed by the petitioner, as there were sufficient number of Inspectors placed above the petitioner in the zone of consideration, therefore, the petitioner could not be promoted. It is not the case of the opposite parties that he was not eligible for being considered for promotion or that he had not been considered for promotion, but the case is that he was considered and placed in the zone of consideration after giving the benefit of the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of Balwinder Singh Matharoo & others, but was placed much below in the zone of consideration and there were other seniors who had a right of consideration prior to him, as sufficient number of vacancies were not there, therefore, the petitioner was not promoted. Moreover, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the relevant instruction according to which he was to be placed lower in the seniority list on his Inter Commissionerate transfer, then he should have challenged it at the relevant time. The Inter Commissionerate transfer took place in 1991, whereas the O.A. was filed in 2023, and as per the petitioner's own contention, the first representation was made in 2014. The judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another Vs. V.N. Bhat, (2003) 8 SCC 714; relied by the petitioner does not relate to the service at hand and the same does not benefit the petitioner for the reasons already given above.
In view thereof, we do not see any reason to interfere in the matter.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.8.2025
Lokesh Kumar
[Manjive Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]
