JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE petitioner/appellant has questioned the order of Single Bench dated 20th March, 2012 passed in S.B. Civil Review Petition No.478/2011, whereby learned Single Judge refused to review the order dated 12.7.2011, whereby writ petition of petitioner was dismissed. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was appointed on the post of Beldar on 5.5.1977, whereas respondent No.4 was appointed as Beldar on 1st August, 1978, therefore, the appellant was senior to respondent No.4. The respondents promoted, respondent No.4 Kushi Ram, on the post of Supervisor vide order dated 19.12.1994 w.e.f. 12.12.1994, without considering the case of appellant. He further submitted that the length of service on initial post should have been taken into consideration while considering the case of promotion of appellant as well as respondent No.4 on the post of Supervisor. Since respondent No.4 has been promoted without considering the case of appellant, therefore, a suitable direction be given to respondents to consider and promote the appellant on the post of Supervisor w.e.f. 12.12.1994 i.e. the date from which a junior person i.e. the respondent No.4, has been promoted. It was, therefore, submitted that writ petition of the petitioner was wrongly dismissed. The review petition was also wrongly dismissed. Both the orders passed by Single Bench are liable to be set aside and they be set aside and writ petition be allowed. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in the light of reasons assigned by learned Single Bench for dismissal of the writ petition as well as review petition and other documents available on record. From the orders of Single Bench as well as documents, it is borne out that appellant and respondent No.4 were initially appointed on the post of Beldar on 5.5.1977 and 1.8.1978 respectively. However, when further promotions were made on the post of Mistry, the respondent No.4 was promoted as Mistry vide order dated 1st June, 1984, which was approved vide order dated 10th October, 1984. The said order promoting the respondent No.4 on the post of Mistry was not challenged by the petitioner. Thereafter, as per seniority in the cadre of Mistry, the considerations were made of eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Supervisor. As per relevant provisions of Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964, the post of Supervisor has to be filled in through direct recruitment and promotion and as regards promotion, one having 10 years' experience as Mistry and 5 years' experience as Senior Mistry is eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Supervisor. The respondent No.4 was eligible for consideration on the post of Supervisor as he had completed 10 years' service on the feeder post and consequently, he was promoted on the post of Supervisor vide order dated 19.12.1994 w.e.f. 12.12.1994. The petitioner has not challenged the promotion order of respondent No.4 on the post of Mistry dated 1st June, 1984. The respondent No.4 continued to work on the post of Mistry and after 10 years, thereafter, the appellant was promoted on the post of Munshi/Mistry on 28th October, 1994. The appellant was admittedly junior to respondent No.4 in the feeder post i.e. Mistry. As per rule, the promotion on the post of Supervisor is made from the feeder post i.e. Mistry. Since the respondent No.4 was 10 years senior than the appellant in the feeder post and promotion of respondent No.4 in feeder post and his seniority in the feeder post was not challenged. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the present order of promotion of respondent No.4 on the post of Supervisor and no direction can be issued in favour of appellant for consideration of his case for promotion on the post of Supervisor from the date the respondent No.4 was promoted.
(3.) THE above factual aspect has not been disputed. Counsel for the appellant has only contended that length of service should be counted from the date of initial appointment on the post of Beldar and appellant should be treated as senior. The contention of appellant cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case, as narrated above. The learned Single Judge has examined the matter thoroughly and by a speaking and reasoned order has rightly dismissed the writ petition as well as the review petition of the petitioner. The reasons assigned by learned Single Judge for dismissal of writ petition as well as review petition of appellant are absolutely legal and justified, which call for no interference, by this Court in this intra-court appeal. In view of above, we do not find any merit in this intra-court appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. The application No.25072/2012 also stands disposed off.;