CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4594 of 2007 PETITIONER: Sita Ram Tiwari RESPONDENT: Union of India and Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/09/2007 BENCH: TARUN CHATTERJEE & P. SATHASIVAM JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
[ Arising out of SLP {C} No.11875 of 2005 ]
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment
and order dated 2nd of November, 2004 passed by a Division Bench of
the High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C. No.9602 of 2004.
4. At the relevant point of time, the appellant was working as an
officiating Vice Principal in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan [ for short
‘the Sangathan’ ]. After retirement, he made representations before
the authorities for consideration of his prayer for promotion to the
post of Principal in the Sangathan. An approach was made before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, [ for short ‘the Tribunal ] for a
direction to the authorities to consider the said prayer of the appellant.
By an order, the Tribunal directed the authorities to consider his prayer
for promotion to the said post of Principal. The representation filed by
the appellant was considered and rejected by the authorities against
which, the Tribunal was approached again which rejected the prayer
of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, a writ petition was moved before
the High Court which also affirmed the order of the Tribunal. The
present appeal by grant of special has been preferred against the
aforesaid order of the High Court.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
after going through the materials on record, including the order
passed by the Tribunal and the impugned order dismissing the writ
petition, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned
order of the High Court in the exercise of our power under Article 136
of the Constitution. It is not in dispute that while the appellant was in
service, he did not raise any objection for not selecting him for
promotion to the post of Principal in the Sangathan. Challenge was
made by the appellant only after his retirement. The Tribunal, while
rejecting his prayer for promotion to the post of Principal in the
Sangathan, on consideration of the material on record, held that no
irregularity or illegality was committed by the Selection Committee
while considering his prayer for promotion as Principal in the
Sangathan. In the impugned order, the High Court concurred with the
finding of the Tribunal that the appellant had failed to point out any
violation of the statutory rules or Article 14 of the Constitution by
denial of promotion to him. The High Court also held that only
because a different view could be taken, it was no ground to
reconsider the matter as urged on behalf of the appellant. We do not
find any reason to interfere with these findings of the High Court or
the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal was approached
by the appellant after his retirement from service and even while in
service, the appellant had not challenged his supersession by other
junior members.
6. Since the appellant had already retired and in view of the
findings of the High Court, with which we are in full agreement, we are
not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court.
The appeal, thus, fails. There will be not order as to costs.