Delhi High Court
M.R.Maurya vs Tribal-Co-Operative Marketing ... on 26 October, 2010
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 120/1997
% 26th October, 2010
M.R.MAURYA ...... Petitioner
Through: None.
VERSUS
TRIBAL-CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION
OF INDIA LTD. (TRIFFED)& OTHERS ....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (Oral)
1. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner since
the last three dates of hearings i.e. 20.11.2009 and 12.5.2006 &
25.10.2010. Today, no one has appeared in this case since
morning and it is now 12 noon. I have therefore perused the
records and am proceeding to dispose of the petition.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, challenge was originally laid by the petitioner to his
compulsory retirement and reversion from the post of Deputy
WP(C) No. 120/1997 Page 1 of 4
General Manager to the post of Assistant General Manager. The
petition was disposed of on the very first day of hearing on
13.1.1997, and by which order, the writ petition was directed to
be treated as a representation to the respondent for being
decided by a reasoned order. The appropriate authority passed a
reasoned order on 3.2.1997, which is found at running page 68 of
the present file. By virtue of this order, the petitioner was
granted the relief of setting aside his compulsory retirement,
however, his reversion was continued. The reversion from the
post of Deputy General Manager to Assistant General Manager
continued not because of any punishment but because of the fact
that seniors to the petitioners were appointed to the post of
Deputy General Manger and there were no other posts vacant for
appointment of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order
dated 3.2.1997 reads as under:-
"The first representation of Shri M.R.Maurya is
against his reversion as Assistant General Manager
(AGM).
The Departmental Promotion Committee in their
meeting held on 24/8/94 prepared a panel of the
following 5 officers for promotion as Deputy General
Manager (DGMs) against 3 vacancies available then.
1. Shri M.S.Dinakar (SC)
2. Shri C.K.Sood
3. Shri S.K.Chauhan
4. Shri M.R.Maurya
5. Dr. S.K.Majumdar
The first three officers in the panel were
promoted against the 3 vacancies of the Deputy
General Manager. Thereafter, following suspension
WP(C) No. 120/1997 Page 2 of 4
of Shri Bhagwant Singh and Shri. S.K.Chauhan,
DGMs, 2 vacancies have arisen on 7/9/94 and
11/1/95 respectively. Consequently, Shri M.R.Maurya
at serial No. 4 of the panel and Dr. S.K.Majumdar at
serial No. 5 of the panel were promoted on 16/1/95
as DGMs in the vacancies that have arisen on
account of the suspension of the two officers.
Subsequently, suspension of Shri Bhagwant Singh
and Shri S.K.Chauhan was revoked and they were
reinstated as DGMs. Both Shri Bhagwant Singh and
Shri S.K. Chauhan, being seniors to Shri M.R.Maurya
and Dr. S.K.Majumdar and there being no more
vacancies, the junior most DGMs namely Shri
M.R.Maurya and Dr. S.K.Majumdar were reverted to
the post of Assistant General Manager vide order
No. TFD/HO/P&A/95/6846 dated 24/7/1995.
In view of the above facts, it is seen that the
reversion of Shri M.R.Maurya was on account of
want of vacancy not for any other reason. Under
these circumstances, I see nothing wrong in the
reversion of the officer. Accordingly, the order of
reversion of Shri M.R.Maurya is upheld and the
representation of Shri M.R.Maurya against his
reversion is rejected."
3. The aforesaid order leaves no manner of doubt that
once there are seniors who are eligible to the post, the petitioner
who was a junior, could not be granted promotion to the post of
Deputy General Manager. The post of Deputy General Manager
by promotion is subject to both selection and seniority. Seniors
to the petitioner were selected and appointed to the post of
Deputy General Manager as a result of which the petitioner was
lower in seniority could not be appointed as there was no post
available.
WP(C) No. 120/1997 Page 3 of 4
4. This writ petition was revived on an application being
CM 6111/1997 vide order dated 5.8.1997 on the basis that the
claim for appointment to the post of Deputy General Manager still
survives. A reference to the application shows that no basis has
been laid as to why the order dated 3.2.1997 is in any manner
incorrect. In fact, there is no question of any shortcoming in the
order dated 3.2.1997 on account of the reasons already given
above.
5. I therefore, find that there is no merit in the claim of
the petitioner for being appointed to the post of Deputy General
Manager.
6. The writ petition is thus dismissed, leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
OCTOBER 26, 2010 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
