IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREOF ANDHRA PRADESH: :HYDERABAD 17th day of September, 2010 Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah And The Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy W.P.No. 5882 of 2000 Between: Kali Prasanna Satapathy ..Petitioner And The Union of India represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and others …Respondents Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavli For Respondents : Sri P. Ashok Goud Sri B. Narayana Reddy VE, J. & PSR, J. W.P.No. 5882 of 2000 O r d e r: (Per P. Swaroop Reddy, J.) This petition is filed against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”), Hyderabad Bench passed in O.A.No. 397 of 1998. The writ petitioner is the petitioner before the Tribunal. 2. The facts are as follows – The petitioner passed M.Sc. (Chemistry) in the year 1982 and completed Ph.D. in the year 1997. He joined the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Orissa in 1986 and worked there till December, 1993 - till his selection by the UPSC as Senior Scientific Officer (Toxicology) and was posted in Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta. Later, UPSC issued advertisement No.15 calling for applications for filling up the post of Assistant Director (Toxicology) in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory; Bureau of Police Research and Development, Ministry of Home Affairs. The case of the petitioner is that the post that was advertised ought to have been filled up by promotion and not by direct recruitment and in case no promotee officer is available, it should be filled up by deputation or transfer. The petitioner submitted a representation for promoting to that post, which was rejected by order No.18/16/97-Adm.II dated:13.11.1997, wherein it was stated that the applicant is eligible for consideration for promotion to the grade of Assistant Director only on 1.4.1999 and the deputationist who occupied that post will be relieved from that post and the applicant will be considered for promotion as and when he fulfills the required eligibility. 3. The petitioner filed OA before the Tribunal to declare that the applicant is entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Director in the existing vacancy notified by the UPSC vide advertisement No.15 on 9.8.1997 for filling it by direct recruitment and also taking into account the service rendered by him in the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Orissa. 4. Before the Tribunal the main contention of the petitioner is that he has completed the required years of service, in case his service rendered in the State Forensic Science Laboratory is taken into consideration and the Post of Assistant Director (Toxicology) cannot be clubbed and it has to be filled up on discipline wise basis. As the first two posts of Assistant Director (Toxicology) are filled up by direct recruitment, the third post shall necessarily be filled up by the promotee. The Rosters maintained for filling up the posts of Assistant Director are erroneously kept. There are number of direct recruites; the ratio is not properly followed and if the roster is correctly followed the post advertised would go to the promotee. 5. The Tribunal after considering the material on record dismissed the O.A., holding that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of Assistant Director (Toxicology), as his services rendered in State Forensic Science Laboratory, Orissa cannot be taken into consideration; the post that was advertised was not meant for promotees and that was meant for direct recruitment only. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 6. The same contentions that were raised before the Tribunal i.e., the service rendered by the petitioner in Orissa State Cadre has to be taken into consideration for treating him as eligible and that the post advertised is meant for promotees is again canvassed by the petitioner in this writ petition. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this writ petition. 8. Several facts i.e., about the qualification of the petitioner; the service rendered by him in the State Cadre and the date of his joining in the central service etc., are not in dispute. 9. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner was qualified to be promoted at the relevant time and the second question that would arise for consideration is whether the vacancy that was advertised was meant to be filled up by the promotees. 10. Coming to the first question, as per the Recruitment Rules, enclosed as Annexure-II to the O.A., in the discipline of Toxicology there were three posts in the cadre of Assistant Directors. The method of recruitment for the post of Assistant Director is by promotion, as well as by direct recruitment, in the ratio of 1:1 i.e., 50% of the vacancies by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% by promotion. The qualification required for promotion are – Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Bureau of Police Research Development with five years of service in the grade rendered after appointment, thereto on a regular basis; or Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II, Central Forensic Research Laboratory, Bureau of Police Research and Development with at least eight years regular service as Senior Scientific Officer Grade II and Junior Scientific Officer combined together of which at least one year service should have been rendered as Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II after appointment thereto on a regular basis. It is also provided that in case no suitable candidate for promotion is available, it can be filled up by deputation or by transfer to be made from other departments, who possessed necessary qualifications. 11. Thus, the qualification that has to be possessed is eight years of regular service as Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II and Junior Scientific Officer combined together of which at least one year service should have been rendered as Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II. In case, the service of the petitioner in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory alone is taken into consideration, he would not be completing minimum eight years of service required to qualify himself to the post and he would be completing eight years only 1.4.1999. There is no dispute that the petitioner has not completed eight years of service in the above manner. But his contention is that the service rendered by him in State Forensic Science Laboratory, Orissa, as Scientific Officer has also to be taken into consideration. But the Rule referred to above would not allow the same. Thus it cannot be said that the petitioner was qualified for the post, as he did not possess the minimum eight years of service required in the relevant cadre. 12. Coming to the next question as to whether the post that was advertised is meant for promotees, the Roster shows that there were nine vacancies in the year 1981; the first five vacancies were filled by promotees giving seniority to the promotees over the direct recruitees. In view of the 1:1 ratio, the next four vacancies are to be filled by direct recruitees and accordingly the next vacancy would go to direct recruit. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the post advertised was not meant to be filled up by the direct recruitee is also incorrect, as held by the Tribunal. In any case, the petitioner was not qualified to be promoted, as such the question as to whether the vacancy was meant to be filled by promotion or by direct recruitment would not be of any great consequence. Thus we see no merits in the writ petition and the same is accordingly liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J. Dated: 17-09-2010. *BVS _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J.