Delhi High Court
Ram Niwas vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 4 March, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.1091/2010
% Date of Decision: 04.03.2010
Ram Niwas .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Yashpal Rangi, Advocate
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation .... Respondent
Through Ms.Mini Pushkarna, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has challenged his alleged reversion from the post
of Assistant Traffic Inspector to the post of conductor with effect from
1st June, 1999. He had also sought directions to the respondent to post
the petitioner to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector by filing a writ
petition which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench being T.A No.113/2009 titled as Sh.Ram Niwas v. Delhi
Transport Corporation which has been dismissed by the order dated 3rd
August, 2009 which is challenged by the petitioner before this Court in
the present writ petition.
The plea of the petitioner that he could not be reverted from the
post of Assistant Traffic Inspector to the post of conductor was opposed
by the respondents contending inter alia that he was promoted to the
post of Assistant Traffic Inspector with effect from 26th September, 1997
on adhoc basis vide memo No.PLD-III (280-81)/97/3097 dated 24th
September, 1997 with the categorical stipulation that the ad-hoc
promotion period was for six months and after the expiry of the ad-hoc
promotion period the petitioner will be reverted to the post of conductor.
This was not disputed that the ad-hoc promotion period was
extended from time to time and uptil 25th September, 1997 and,
therefore, the petitioner became liable for reversion to his original post
of conductor after the expiry of extended period.
The respondents had also contended that the petitioner remained
unauthorisedly absent from his duties during the period 24th
September, 1997 to 31st May, 1999 for about 92 days. The petitioner
had also been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for
promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, however, he was
not found suitable. The respondent had contended that the petitioner
has not been reverted to the post of conductor on account of any
punishment imposed upon him.
The Tribunal noted that the petitioner did not challenge the
recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee not to
promote him to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. By the said order
dated 24th September, 1997, 347 conductors and drivers were promoted
and the petitioner was at serial no.320. The promotion order relied on
by the petitioner categorically stipulated that the promotion of the
petitioner to the post of ATI was on ad-hoc basis and the petitioner was
not recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for
regular promotion to the post of ATI.
Since the petitioner was not recommended for promotion by the
Departmental Promotion Committee to the post of Assistant Traffic
Inspector, the petitioner cannot impugn in the present petition the
order whereby the persons junior to the petitioners were recommended
for promotion and promoted by the Departmental Promotion
Committee. Since the petitioner worked as Assistant Traffic Inspector
on account of ad-hoc promotion given to him, the reversion of the
petitioner after the expiry of the period which had been extended from
time to time, shall not be contrary to any rules and regulations nor any
such rules and regulations has been pointed out by the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
The petitioner has also not made a case of malafide on account of
his reversion after the expiry of the period of ad-hoc promotion. In the
circumstances, no cogent ground has been disclosed by the petitioner
to interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated 3rd August, 2009
dismissing his petition seeking appointment to the post of Assistant
Traffic Inspector. The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is
without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
March 04, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'
