Delhi High Court
Sushil Kumar Chokhani vs Union Of India & Others on 31 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: 94 (2001) DLT 794, 2001 (60) DRJ 48
Bench: B Khan, M S Agarwal
ORDER
Khan, (J)
1.
Petitioner is wanting a retrospective promotion to the post of Architect from 1995 when according to him he became eligible for it.l For this, he filed OA No. 1889/99 which was dismissed by CAT by order dated 10.2.2000. Hence this petition.
2.
The post of Architect is to be filled up from two feeding channels viz. Deputy Architect (Group A post) possessing four years regular service and Assistant Architect (Group B) possessing eight years service under Central Architect Service Group A Recruitment Rules, 1989. Under Rule 7(5), if it cannot be filled up by promotion or by transfer on deputation, then it is to be filled up through commission from eligible persons under the Rules.
3.
Petitioner, appointed Deputy Architect in 1990 became eligible for promotion to the post of Architect in 1995 but he was not promoted. He filed OA No. 1889/99 seeking promotion on the plea that respondents had wrongly carried forward the vacancies of post of Architect from 1995 in contravention of recruitment rules and for non-availability of the eligible candidates from the feeding channel of Assistant Architect when under Rule 7(5), such available vacancies were to be filled up through commission from amongst eligible candidates.
4.
Petitioner, however, did not lay any foundation in support thereof and did not indicate how many vacancies had become available and how these were carried forward in breach of any Rules, if any. His application was opposed by respondents on the plea that they had to maintain a ration of 1:1 between the two feeding channels under Rules. They explained that available 13 vacancies in 1991-92 and 4 in 1995 which were otherwise to be filled up from the feeding cadre of Assistant Architect were diverted and filled up from Deputy Architect. But later when 14 vacancies became available in 1999, this imbalance was rectified and these were filled up from the cadre of Assistant Architect Noticing this, Tribunal found that no exception could be made to the course adopted by respondents and dismissed petitioner's OA.
5.
Petitioner again harps on the same tune. His main grievance seems to be that three of his juniors in the cadre of Assistant Architect and promoted to the post of Architect had superseded him and had become senior to him.
6.
It may so be but so long as respondents had operated the roaster to fill up the available vacancies after 1995 in accordance with the prescribed ratio under rules, their action can't be faulted. It transpires that available vacancies in 1995 were diverted to be filled up from the cadre of Deputy Architect but petitioner was not promoted as he was not eligible at the relevant time. He had lagged behind because of respondent's action to rectify the imbalance in accordance with the ration prescribed under Rules. His best bet perhaps could be if he establishes somehow that respondent had wrongly diverted the available vacancies after 1995 for being filled up from the cadre of Assistant Architect.
7.
Viewed thus, petitioner's present petition appears misdirected on the face of it. He only assumes that vacancies that had become available after 1995 were carried forward in contravention of rules without showing or laying any basis for this.
8.
This petition is accordingly dismissed. Now that petitioner stands promoted to the post of Architect in March this year, it shall be open to him to challenge any faulty maintenance of roaster and filling up of the post of Architect as a result thereof by an appropriate remedy.
