SHAIKH MEER SALIYAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, in Original Application no. 846/98. By its Order dated 30. 05. 2000, the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by the present Petitioner.

(2.) THE Petitioner was originally appointed as a Sepoy in the Department w. e. f. 01. 06. 1976. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the year 1981 and was confirmed on the same post on 24. 02. 1982. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on adhoc basis and his appointment was regularized on the said post w. e. f. 14. 07. 1987. The petitioner was subsequently given adhoc appointment on the post of Tax Assistant vide Order dated 08. 08. 1990. The ministerial post of Upper Division Clerk and Stenographer-II are feeder grade for the purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector/preventive Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that the post of Tax Assistant is also source for promotion to the post of Inspector/preventive Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that he became eligible for the said promotion to the post of Inspector/preventive Officer as per the Recruitment Rules w. e. f. 14. 07. 1992. It seems that for the purpose of regular promotion to the post of Tax Assistant, a Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted in the year 1995. The criteria for promotion to the said post is merit. Various candidates including the Respondent no. 4 appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee at the relevant time. However, the petitioner was not found meritorious for such promotion as his ranking was much below and the respondent no. 4 was found suitable for such promotion in the year 1995. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 4, however, did not opt for such promotion and, therefore, no appointment could be made for the relevant year i. e. in the year 1995 even though selection process was conducted by Departmental Promotion Committee for filling the said post. The respondent no. 4 even though was selected for the said post of Inspector of Central Excise, she did not opt for said promotion as she was interested in getting promotion to the post of Preventive Officer (Customs ). Accordingly, no appointment was made so far as the post of Tax Inspector for the relevant year 1995 was concerned. Subsequently, in the year 1996, Departmental Promotion Committee again met for the purpose of selecting a person to the aforesaid post of Inspector of Central Excise and Preventive Officer (Customs ). The case of the petitioner was not considered at that time on the ground that he had already crossed upper age limit of 45 years.

(3.) IN the year 1995, Departmental Promotion Committee met for the purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Preventive Officer (Customs ). Learned Counsel Mr. Ferreira, who is appearing for Union of India, submitted that at the relevant time, in the year 1995, four vacancies were notified for the post of Preventive Officer (Customs) and one of Inspector of Central Excise. It is further submitted by Mr. Ferreira that so far as the post of Inspector of Central Excise is concerned, since respondent no. 4 had not opted for the same, that post could not be filled in and it remained vacant so far as vacancy of 1995 is concerned. Subsequently, in 1996, Departmental Promotion Committee again met for the purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Preventive Officer (Customs ). The claim of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that at that time he had crossed the age of 45 and, therefore, he was not eligible for the said post. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Original Application no. 846/98. The Tribunal found that as per the grading of the Departmental Promotion Committee, since the petitioner was far below it the ranking and since the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended promotion of only one candidate i. e. respondent no. 4, that the petitioner was rightly not given promotion in the year 1995. Regarding non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner by the Departmental Promotion Committee so far as in the year 1996 is concerned, the Tribunal found that since the petitioner was age barred, his case was rightly not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is the aforesaid Order which is impugned in this Petition.