IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.865 of 2007 LILADHAR PRASAD SINGH & ANR Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. T.B. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vikram Singh For the respondents : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad Mr. Ravi Verma --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 19th September, 2008 We heard the counsel for the petitioners. 2. It is not in dispute that by a representation dated 27th March, 1990, the petitioners claimed promotion to the post of Deputy Director under the provision of Rule 4(b), subject to the clearance of the departmental examination. 3. We deem it appropriate to re-produce the representation made by the petitioners in this regard: “In continuation of my earlier letter dated 20.3.90 following points are to be brought to your kind notice in light of letter no.F-25/1/60-Adm. IV, Ministry of Irrigation and Power dated 23rd December, 1965 quoted below- As amended vide Ministry of I & P’s Ir. No.39/1/68-Adm-1, dt.20.6.1969 2(a) All Engg. Officers of the rank Asstt. Director/Asstt. Ex. Engineer/Research Officer in the Central Water & Power Commission or its Regional and Subordinate Offices, other than the Central Water & Power Research Station, Poona; will be required to pass the Departmental Examination within 4 years of appointment/promotion to the posts provided that no officer 2 avail of more than four chances. Ministry of I & P addendum No.25/1/60-Adm.I(Vol.III), dt. 15.9.71. Rule 4 (b) of the Rules for the Departmental Examination for Engineering officers of the CW & PC shall stand amended as aforesaid retrospectively with effect from the 23rd Dec., 1965. Asstt. Directors/A.E.E./Research Officers who are in service in the CW & PC on the date of the issue of these rules may be considered for promotion to the posts of Dy. Director/Ex. Engineer during the period of 4 years from the date of issue of these rules. Officers who are thus promoted will, however, be required to pass the Departmental Examination within the prescribed period. If an officer, so promoted, fails to pass the Departmental Examination within the prescribed period, increments accruing to him thereafter shall be withheld. In case he subsequently passes the Examination under the rules 2 (e), Govt. may allow him to draw pay with effect from the day following that on which the examination in which he passed was held at the rate of which he would have been entitled, has his increments not been withheld. An officer who fails to pass the Departmental Examination shall not also be considered for further promotion Rule 4(c) Passing the Departmental Examination will not confer any claim for promotion. It is only a qualifying test and not a test for seniority, Seniority shall not be disturbed in case an officer passes the test earlier or in the same test gets a higher position than his seniors. Rule 8 The Govt. may amend, cancel or aid to any of these provisions from time to time. I. 22 A.E.E./Ads have been given regular promotion vide office order dated 28.2.90 as quoted above. Out of these 22 only three are senior to me. II. A.E.E/A.Ds. who have cleared departmental examination but are junior to me have been given promotion vide above order dated 28.2.90. Thus, the rule 4(c) as quoted above have been violated by disturbing my seniority. III. Every A.E.E./Ads. is to be given four chances for passing departmental examination since the date of joining vide rule 2(a) as quoted above. Hence, A.E.E/A.Ds. junior to me should have been given promotion only after expiry of said period of four year of first departmental examination since my joining this organization. IV. Ever since my joining I could appear for departmental examination for the first time in 1989 when I cleared two out of four written papers and viva voce test. V. Under the situation it is requested to give me promotion under provision similar to rule 4(b) subject to clearance of 3 departmental examination with effect from 28.2.90 or else promotion to those junior to me in above promotion order be cancelled till the period allowed to me for passing departmental examination.” 4. The senior counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the said representation came to be rejected on 2nd February, 1993 and petitioners claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Director was rejected. 5. It appears that after a lapse of about 6 or 7 years when the gradation list came to be issued, the petitioners sought to raise the same issue in the garb of challenging the seniority list. When the representation made by the petitioners in this regard was not accepted, the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The original application filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the tribunal, inter alia, by observing that the applicant had not challenged the 1993 order by which the representation for antedating their date of promotion was rejected and they have only tried to raise the same issue by submitting a representation against seniority list. 6. In our view, the Tribunal has considered the matter in right perspective. As a matter of fact, challenge to the seniority list is nothing but re-agitating the issue regarding the date of promotion, which was negatived by the authority way back on 2nd February, 1993 and the said order was never put in issue by the 4 petitioners. 7. Writ petition, therefore, does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/