Delhi High Court
Romail Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.368/2011
% 9th February, 2017
ROMAIL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan,
Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner seeks the relief that he should be granted
promotion because juniors to him have been granted promotion.
2. The present writ petition is totally bereft of a legal cause
of action because there is no law that a person has to be promoted
because juniors below to him have been promoted. The legal cause of
action to succeed in promotion is to plead (and substantiate) as to
which is the promotion post, what are the qualifying criteria for being
promoted to the higher post, how the petitioner satisfies the eligibility
criteria for being promoted to the higher post, whether the post is an
automatic promotion post or a selection post, if the post is a selection
post then which is the DPC which had to consider the petitioner for
promotion but did not consider him or if petitioner was considered then
why the DPC decision should be quashed because petitioner has
wrongly not been promoted etc etc. There is however not even a
whisper of a legal cause of action in terms of the aforesaid
requirements of a writ petition in this writ petition by which the
petitioner would seek promotion to a higher post.
3. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be and is
accordingly dismissed for completely lacking the pleadings and
substantiation of a legal cause of action to seek promotion and more so
more promotions than one as claimed, as none of the requirements of
the legal causes of action of promotions to one or more higher posts are
stated in the writ petition and as to how the petitioner complies with
the requirements of promotion(s) with the aspect that if the posts were
selection posts then petitioner only had a right to be considered and
nothing further.
4. A reading of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent
no.4/National Hydroelectric Power Corporation/employer shows that
petitioner was not promoted from the post of Assistant Engineer
(Mechanical) to the higher post because petitioner did not even satisfy
the requirements for being appointed as an Assistant Engineer
(Mechanical) inasmuch as for this post of Assistant Engineer
(Mechanical) petitioner needed a diploma in engineering discipline of
three years but petitioner did not have a diploma in engineering but
only had a certificate of proficiency of one year duration from the
Central Water Commission, Govt. of India and on which basis,
petitioner did not meet the qualifications for the next higher promotion
post and even on the existing post being the post of Assistant Engineer
(Mechanical). As already stated above, even for the post of Assistant
Engineer (Mechanical) petitioner did not have the necessary qualifying
criteria of a diploma in engineer discipline of three years.
5. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition
and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their
own costs.
FEBRUARY 09,2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
ib
