Delhi High Court
Ramesh Chand Sairollia vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 12 August, 2015
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~24.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6992/2015
% Judgment dated 12th August, 2015
RAMESH CHAND SAIROLLIA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.U. Srivastava, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, ASC. for respondent
no.1.
Mr.Rajshekhar Rao and Mr.Varun
Mishra, Advs. for respondent no.2.
Mr.Saurabh Chadda, Adv. for respondent
no.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to produce the relevant
records, set aside the impugned order dated 1.9.2014 and direct the
respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of
Administrative Officer with all consequential benefits.
2. As per the petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 9.9.1977.
On 10.4.1978 he was promoted as a Clerk and thereafter in the month of
October, 2010, he was promoted as a Superintendent. In the year 2011, a
list was prepared with respect to ten graduate Superintendents, who were
in the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of Administrative
Officer. This list included the name of the petitioner. However, while
processing the case of the petitioner herein, it was noticed that there was
one complaint pending against the petitioner in the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. In the year 2012,
the petitioner made a representation to the respondents for being
considered for promotion to the Post of Administrative Officer. The
petitioner in the meanwhile superannuated on 29.2.2012. In the month of
August, 2012, the petitioner was informed that the departmental enquiry
against him stands closed. On 29.8.2012 District and Sessions Judge was
informed that three persons have been appointed for the posts of
Administrative Officer, out of the list containing the names of ten senior
most Graduate Superintendents, falling in the zone of consideration. Vide
another communication dated 5.3.2013 the District and Sessions Judge
(HQs) was informed that three more persons have also been appointed to
the post of Administrative Officer, out of the list containing names of ten
senior most Graduate Superintendents, who were in the zone of
consideration. In both the lists, the name of the petitioner was not
considered. Thereafter the petitioner sought information under Right to
Information Act as to how many times his name was sent for
consideration and the result thereof. The petitioner was informed that vide
letter dated 19.9.2011 eight names of the senior most Graduate
Superintendents have been forwarded to the High Court for appointment
to the post of Administrative Officer and the name of the petitioner herein
was mentioned at Sl.No.8. The petitioner was also informed that vide
letter dated 12.10.2011, names of ten senior most Graduate
Superintendents were forwarded to the High Court for appointment and
his name was mentioned at Sl.No.8 in the said list. It was also informed
that since the appointing authority for the post of Administrative Officer
is High Court, the petitioner may seek the result with reasons from the
High Court. A copy of the information obtained under Right to
Information Act has been placed on record. On 30.6.2014, the petitioner
submitted a detailed representation to be considered for the post of
Administrative Officer with all consequential benefits, however, the said
representation was rejected on 19.8.2014 and the order of rejection was
also conveyed to the petitioner on 1.9.2014.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents did not give
any reasons for rejection of his claim. Even otherwise, the order of
rejection of the representation also does not disclose any reasons.
4. Counsel for the respondents have entered appearance. It is submitted that
the post of Administrative Officer was filled up on the basis of seniority.
5. Original record has been produced in Court. The matter was passed over
once to enable the counsel for the petitioner to inspect the same. As per
the record, the name of the petitioner finds at Serial No.8 whereas the first
three persons have been appointed only on the basis of seniority.
6. Upon perusal of the record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition and
the same may be disposed of.
7. Accordingly, present application stands disposed of in view of above.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
AUGUST 12, 2015 msr
