1 wp-4331-2010 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4331 OF 2010 N.S. Raut ..Petitioner Vs. The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Sandeep V. Marne, for the petitioner. Mr. T.J. Pandian, for respondent No.3. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATE: 5th October, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Marne, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pandian appears for the respondent No.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10th March, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, in O.A. No.215 of 2006. 2. The petitioner came to be appointed as Tracer on 24th March,1980 and subsequently he was promoted as Junior Draftsman in the year 1984 and as Senior Draftsman in the year 1988 on ad hoc basis. He was regularised in the post of Senior Draftsman in the year 1991 and finally he was promoted to the post of Head Draftsman (Grade I) in the year 1995. 2 wp-4331-2010 On 28th November, 1997 a panel for promotion to the post of Chief Draftsman was published and in the said panel the petitioner as well as the respondent No.4 were interviewed for promotion to the post of Chief Draftsman. On 5th December, 1997 the posting order was published and as per the same the petitioner was required to report at Sholapur whereas the respondent No.4 was posted at Pune. It appears that the respondent No.4 reported at Pune immediately, but the petitioner submitted a representation stating that owing to the family problems he would not be able to report at Solapur and he remained at Pune. He had also submitted an application for upgradation of his post at Pune. Though the post at Pune was upgraded subsequently, only by office order No.35/99 dated 23rd April, 1999 he was posted at Pune and thereafter he joined in the promoted post. 3. On or about 6th June, 2001 the Head Quarters at Mumbai published a seniority list of Chief Draftsman and the respondent No.4 was shown senior to the petitioner. He, therefore, approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 215 of 2006 contending that in the promotion panel dated 28th November, 1997 he was shown above the respondent No.4 and the same position was required to be maintained even in the seniority list despite the fact that he did not resum charge on the post of Chief Draftsman till 23rd April, 1999. 4. The Tribunal in the impugned order has considered the fact that 3 wp-4331-2010 despite the posting order dated 5th December, 1997 the petitioner did not report at Solapur and he joined the promotional post only from 26th April, 1999 at Pune. Thus in the post of Chief Draftsman respondent No.4 had taken charge on 5th December, 1997 and the petitioner had reported in the said post on 26th April, 1999 solely for the reasons attributable to him. It was under these circumstances the Tribunal held that the petitioner cannot claim seniority over respondent No.4. Despite the fact that the promotion panel was published on 28th November, 1997 and the posting order was issued on 5th December, 1997 the petitioner on his own accord did not report at Solapur in the promoted post. Therefore, he has to blame himself. The view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned order cannot be faulted with. 5. Hence the petition is rejected summarily. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)