- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The third respondent Govind Sahai was promoted by an order dated 24/4/197676 as Diesel Foreman. Aggrieved by that, the appellant challenged that order of promotion by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 153 of 1978 in the High court of rajasthan which was subsequently transferred to the central Administrative tribunal and numbered as TA No. 359 of 1986. According to the appellant, the said Govind Sahai was junior to him as Diesel Chargeman 'c' Grade and the promotion of the said Govind Sahai overlooking the seniority of the petitioner was liable to be quashed.
(3.) The tribunal while noticing the admitted position that prior to 1969, the third respondent was junior to the appellant found from records valid reasons for overlooking the claims of the appellant. The tribunal after noticing the relevant factors observed as follows: "Admitted position is that Govind Sahai was promoted in 1969 as chargeman on the reversion of the applicant and the applicant was again promoted in 1970 and he was again reverted and subsequently he was promoted in 1972. Naturally, Govind Sahai who was junior entered the higher grade in 1969 and continued to hold the same, eventually the length of service of higher grade will have to be counted. It was not a stopgap arrangement but it was on the action of reversion of the applicant that govind Sahai was promoted. The promotion of Govind Sahai on higher post on 24/4/1976 is also good as he was holding the post of the Chargeman from 1969 whereas the applicant was holding the post from 1971. So, naturally, Govind Sahai was entitled for promotion earlier than the applicant and there is nothing wrong in it. ";