AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.—The petitioner approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dated 13/8/1997 dismissing Original Application No.1328 of 1995 filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner approached the learned Tribunal being aggrieved by denial of deemed date of promotion of the 1986 to him.
Undisputedly, the petitioner was promoted as Scientist E -II in the year 1992, giving effect from 01/02/1988. However, according to the petitioner, he was entitled to be promoted after completion of five years of service as Scientist E -I, in the year 1986, and the denial thereof gave cause of action for filing of Original Application. The learned Tribunal rejected the Original Application on the ground of the limitation as well as on merits. Hence, the present petition.
Heard Smt. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Smt. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted promotion in the cadre of Scientist E -I in the year 1981 and as such, on completion of five years'' period in the cadre of Scientist E -I, he was entitled to be promoted in the year 1986 in the cadre of Scientist E -II. She further submits that the petitioner has also not been given proper weightage for the service, referred to by the National Institute, for the period of five years, as required in Clause -II of Circular dated 14/12/1983. Learned Counsel further submits that the impugned order needs to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
As against this, Smt. Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that Circular dated 14/12/1983 is not applicable to the employees of respondent No.1 but it is restricted only to the employees of Central Government. She further submits that in any case, in the year 1986, the petitioner did not fulfill the benchmark required to be eligible for promotion of the petitioner and as such no interference would be warranted in the impugned order.
The learned Tribunal found that the claim of the petitioner for promotion in the year 1986 was sought to be agitated in the year 1987. Apart from that, the learned Tribunal found that the petitioner failed to make out his case on merits also.
By now, it is settled principle of law that an employee is not entitled to be promoted as a matter of right. The entitlement of an employee is only to be considered for being promoted to the higher post. From the perusal of reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is revealed that the petitioner was considered to be promoted, however, he did not fulfill the requisite benchmark for being promoted to the higher post.
Undisputedly, the petitioner has been promoted in the year 1992 and granted deemed date of promotion of the year 1988. No plausible explanation for not approaching the Tribunal from the year 1992 to 1997 has been given in the petition.
Apart from that, it is specifically stated by the respondents that upon completion of five years of service in the lower cadre, the petitioner was considered for promotion in the higher cadre but he was not found fit and suitable. Though vague allegations of mala fides have been levelled, no specific material in support of the allegations of mala fide has been placed on record. In that view of the matter, we find that the contention in that regard deserves no merit. In the totality of circumstances, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Tribunal is either perverse or impossible so as to warrant interference in the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.