IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 15 of 2004 M.D. Pandey …Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others …Respondents. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Nainital, Uttarakhand dated 23.4.2003 passed in Original Application No. 17 of 2001. The brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings before this Court are as follows : The petitioner was appointed as a Cook in the year 1971 in Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (from hereinafter referred to as S.I.B.), Almora, consequently known as S.I.B., Lucknow. In the year 1976, the department in which the petitioner was working came out with a scheme by which all the S.I.Bs Centres were asked to review the cases of Cooks working in the establishment so that they could be appointed as Security Assistants (S.As). Consequently vide an order dated 24.1.1977, a number of Cooks were appointed as Security Assistants. It is submitted by the applicant that many of these Cooks who were appointed as Security Assistants by the said order were in fact junior to him and this fact has been ignored and the petitioner was not appointed as Security Assistant though he made representations before the concerned authorities. The petitioner further argued that since he was wrongly denied appointment/promotion to the post of Security Assistant, which was actually given to other similarly situated Cooks, 2 some of them being in fact junior to the petitioner, as a consequence thereof, they gained further promotions to the post of Junior Intelligence Officer-II in the year and some of them have been further promoted to the post of Junior Intelligence Officer-I in the year 1995. The Original Application, as referred above, therefore was filed on the aforesaid set of facts. At this juncture, it is necessary to mention that the petitioner had earlier filed an Original Application being Original Application No. 2217/1994 before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi which was decided on 9.5.1995 directing the respondents to consider the matter of the applicant in integrated cadre restructuring for which a proposal was already pending with the Government for conversion of Cooks as Security Assistants. The direction of the Tribunal were to expedite this exercise within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Pursuant to the direction given by the Tribunal, the applicant i.e. the present petitioner before this Court was appointed as a Security Assistant vide order dated 4.2.1997 as a one time exception by relaxing the recruitment rules. After he was given appointment as a Security Assistant with effect from 7.1.1997, the applicant gave a representation to the authorities that his case may be considered for promotion as Junior Intelligence Officer-I from the same date when others junior to him have been promoted as such. This representation of the applicant/petitioner was rejected by the authorities vide order dated 17.6.1998 on the grounds that as per the recruitment rules 8 years service in the rank of Security Assistant (G) is required for promotion to the rank of Junior Intelligence Officer-II and since the petitioner/applicant was appointed as Security Assistant 3 (G) with effect from 7.1.1997, he is not eligible for promotion to the rank of Junior Intelligence Officer-II (G). Consequently, the applicant/petitioner again moved a representation praying that he may be given a notional promotion with effect from the same date when persons junior to him were promoted. This again was rejected vide office memorandum dated 3.7.2000. It is this order which was ultimately challenged by the applicant/petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Nainital, Uttarakhand in Original Application, as referred above. We now revert to the situation in 1976-77, when initially, as per the case of the petitioner, similarly situated Cooks were promoted to the post of Security Assistants as it is this promotion/appointment which goes to the root of the matter. It is an admitted case that the scheme by which the Cooks were promoted to the post of Security Assistants in the year 1976-77 was only applicable to those Cooks who were working in Laddakh or Arunanchal Pradesh or Shimla i.e. the scheme was for those working on a high altitude area. This scheme was not applicable in case of the petitioner who at the relevant time was working at Haldwani. Whatever the merits and demerits of such a scheme, neither this Court nor the Tribunal was in any position to examine the said scheme on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as there was no challenge to this scheme either before the Tribunal or before any other authority or even in the present writ petition. It is for this reason that the Tribunal came to a conclusion that what goes to the root of the matter is the promotions given to the other Cooks in the year 1976-77 on the basis of the scheme which still remain unchallenged. 4 The respondents have argued that in 1976, it was only a one time exception that the Cooks working in the forward areas like Laddakh and Arunanchal Pradesh with 5 years service were considered for appointment as Security Assistants. Since the applicant did not fulfil the criteria as mentioned above, he could not be considered for appointment as Security Assistant. Only such persons were appointed as Security Assistant in 1977 who were working under I.T.B.F, Leh and S.I.B. Shimla. No Cook under other S.I.Bs such as the petitioner was appointed as Security Assistant under the said scheme. Therefore, the applicant/petitioner cannot claim that he should have been appointed as Security Assistant along with those persons junior to him in 1977. This Court, therefore, finds no anomaly in the conclusions arrived at by the Central Administrative Bench, Circuit Bench at Nainital in the Original Application No. 17 of 2001 filed by the petitioner/applicant. The scheme by which the promotions were given to the Cooks in the year 1976-77 was not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Moreover, there is no challenge to such a scheme. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be given retrospective promotion or a notional promotion as has prayed, in his Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Nainital dated 23.4.2003 is perfectly in order. The writ petition is totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 22.4.2010 Avneet