Raj Krishan Sachdeva vs PGI

R.L. Anand, J.—Raj Krishan Sachdeva-petitioner who is working as Assistant Store Keeper in the P.G.I. has filed the present petition against the respondents by making a prayer that a writ of Certiorari be issued for quashing Annexures P-6, P-10 and P-12 and for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to restore the seniority of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Store Officer over and above the private respondents 3 to 6.

The case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Assistant Store Keeper in the PGI. The next promotion is Assistant Store Officer. He was senior to one Walaiti Ram-respondent No. 5. His case is that Walaiti Ram has been illegally promoted by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short the Committee) on 21.4.1969 with effect from 2.3.1969 when the petitioner was senior to him. In short, the grouse of the petitioner is that since he was senior to Walaiti Ram, he was supposed to be considered at all stages i.e. on 25.7.1968 when the Committee held its first meeting; on 21.4.1969 when the Committee again assembled and decided to promote Walaiti Ram as Senior Store Keeper and, therefore, the decision dated 12.6.1970 of the Committee promoting the petitioner for a period of 6 months is erroneous as a bad order.

Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. It has been contested by the PGI mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner could not be promoted on account of his bad record and secondly the petition is bound to fail on the ground of delay and laches.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance I have gone through the record of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince me through the written statement of respondent No. 1 by alleging that it is the admitted case of the parties that petitioner was senior to Walaiti Ram-respondent No. 5 as Assistant Store Keeper. Learned counsel further submitted that in the meeting held on 25.7.1968 for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant Store Keeper, the name of Walaiti Ram has been considered but the name of the petitioner has not been considered and it has caused a serious prejudice to the petitioner. On the contrary, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that petitioner was not enjoying a good record prior to 1968-69 and perhaps for this reason, he has not been considered for promotion in the meeting dated 21.4.1969. Learned counsel further submitted that it might be possible that as on 25.7.1968, the ACR of the petitioner for the years 1967-68 may not have been finalised. It was also submitted that this petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground of delay and laches because the decision regarding the promotion of Walaiti Ram was taken in the meeting held on 21.4.1969 and he was promoted with effect from 2.3.1969 and after a lapse of 24 years, the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court should not be invoked.

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. In my opinion, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Under the garb of the present petition, the petitioner, in fact, wants to challenge the promotion of Wataiti Ram merely on the ground that Walaiti Ram was junior to him. He was ordered to be promoted in the meeting held on 21.4.1969 with effect from 2.3.1969, therefore, the writ should have been instituted within 3 years as the cause of action arose to the pelitioner for the first time on 21.4.1969. When the cause of action starts, it cannot be stopped by any representation. Be that as it may, now it is to be seen whether the petitioner has been considered or not and what is the merits of the petitioner ? A perusal of the written statement would show that the Committee held the meeting on 25.7.1968 in which the case of the petitioner was considered and he was not recommended for appointment to the post of Senior Store Keeper. In that very meeting, even the name of Walaiti Ram was considered but he had not completed the requisite experience, therefore, his case was deferred and it was ordered that his case would be put up in the month of March, 1969. Again the Committee held its meeting on 21.4.1969. Since by that time Walaiti Ram had completed the requisite experience, therefore, the Committee recommended his name to the post of Senior Store Keeper with effect from 2.3.1969. The record of the petitioner was not in order as is evident from the subsequent proceedings dated 12.6.1970. The observations of the Committee are as follows :-

"His ACRs during the previous 2 years do not contain any adverse remarks. However, there had been adverse remarks prior to that. He has also been issued warnings in the previous years on account of dereliction of duties. His promotion on previous occasions had been held up and juniors had been promoted. In view of all these factors, the Departmental Promotion Committee recommends that Shri Raj Krishan, Store Keeper, be promoted as Senior Store Keeper only provisionally for a period of 6 months, after which a special report should be called for from the Medical Superintendent abouf his work and conduct. If he earns a satisfactory report, he may be allowed to continue in regular post."

If we read these proceedings dated 12.6.1970 between the lines, it is very clear that the name of the pe- titioner was considered for promotion on previous oc- casions and he was not considered suitable for promo- tion. The Committee was of the clear opinion that they are withholding the promotion of the petitioner be cause of the bad record. His juniors were promoted. It appears that the name of the petitioner inadvertently was recommended in the meeting dated 21.4.1969. We all know that nobody can claim promotion as a matter of right. The only right of a servant is that he can be considered for promotion. The Committee is the best judge to adjudicate the suitability of the candidates whether he is fit for promotion or not. Proceedings dated 12.6.1970 leave no manner of doubt that the petitioner was considered along with Walaiti Ram in the meeting dated 21.4.1969. Unfortunately, the old re cord is not forthcoming from the PGI inspite of the fact that directions were given to the respondents for pro- ducing the records. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that inspite of the best efforts made, the old record of 1969 is not avail able. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and moreover 1 am of the opinion that the petitioner was ignored for the post of Senior Store Keeper because of his bad record. He started getting good record only for 2 years i.e. for 1968-69. Learned counsel for the petitioner then sub- mitted that his client crossed the efficiency bar on 15.6.1968 on account of having good record for the previous year and it should be inferred that the petitioner was eligible for promotion and that the stand of the respondents that the previous record of the peti- tioner prior to 1968-69 was bad, has no meaning. The yard stick for crossing the efficiency bar has to be un- derstood differently from the parameters of promo- tion. In the last proceedings of the committee, it has been specifically observed that the previous record of the petitioner was bad and he was served with several warnings for the dereliction of his duties. This Court cannot sit over the decision of the Committee unless it is arbitrary or mala fide or biased one. The petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of 23 years and his contention itself justifies for the dismissal of the present writ petition.

The net result is that this petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. On merits, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case.

Petition dismissed.