SURESH KUMAR LEKHWANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant by the present application is seeking for a direction to Respondents 1 to 3 to give effect to his promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Archeologist (ASA for short) with effect from 1.3.1985 i.e., the date on which respondents junior to him were promoted. He also wants a declaration that the decision of Respondent No. 2 to give effect to his promotion with effect from 1.9.86 is not just and proper particularly as on 1.3.1985. He was the senior most eligible person to be promoted as ASA. He has therefore prayed for quashing the promotion Respondents 4 to 13 and to place him above them in the order of seniority list.

(2.) The applicant was working as Senior Technical Assistant since July, 1977. He was offered ad hoc promotion to the post of ASA vide order dated 22.1.1981. He refused the same on account of some domestic problem as he could not move out of Nagpur. He was again offered promotion on regular basis vide letter dated 24.8.1981 to the same post. He once again declined the offer for the same reason as before. Thus he got debarred for promotion for one year. He was again offered promotion as per letter dated 11.10.1982, that too was refused for domestic reason. So again he was debarred for promotion for one year with effect from 9.9.82 to 8.10.1982. After he became eligible for promotion, according to him he ought to have been promoted after 9.9.82. But persons junior to him i.e., Respondent 4 to 13 were promoted with effect from 1.3.1985, 5.11.1985 and 1.5.1986 on different dates. The applicant was left out. As on 1.4.1983, he was the senior most at Sl. No. 31 in the seniority list, whereas Respondents 4 to 13 were all shown junior to him. Respondent 4 to 13 were further promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent Archeology with effect from 19.5.1994, thus placing them above the applicant in the seniority list published on 28.2.1991.

(3.) ACCORDING to the applicant, being the senior most on 9.9.1983 when he had become eligible after the period of one year of debarment, he ought to have been considered for promotion from the earlier date of 1.3.1985. There were no adverse entries in his ACR as he had never been communicated such a remark at any lime. ACCORDING to him, there is no rationale behind to give effect from 1.9.1986 when juniors to him were promoted earlier.