W.P. (C.) No. 1091 of 2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No.1091/2010 % Date of Decision: 04.03.2010 Ram Niwas …. Petitioner Through Mr.Yashpal Rangi, Advocate Versus Delhi Transport Corporation …. Respondent Through Ms.Mini Pushkarna, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner has challenged his alleged reversion from the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector to the post of conductor with effect from 1st June, 1999. He had also sought directions to the respondent to post the petitioner to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector by filing a writ petition which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench being T.A No.113/2009 titled as Sh.Ram Niwas v. Delhi Transport Corporation which has been dismissed by the order dated 3rd August, 2009 which is challenged by the petitioner before this Court in the present writ petition. W.P. (C.) No. 1091 of 2010 Page 2 of 4 The plea of the petitioner that he could not be reverted from the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector to the post of conductor was opposed by the respondents contending inter alia that he was promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector with effect from 26th September, 1997 on adhoc basis vide memo No.PLD-III (280-81)/97/3097 dated 24th September, 1997 with the categorical stipulation that the ad-hoc promotion period was for six months and after the expiry of the ad-hoc promotion period the petitioner will be reverted to the post of conductor. This was not disputed that the ad-hoc promotion period was extended from time to time and uptil 25th September, 1997 and, therefore, the petitioner became liable for reversion to his original post of conductor after the expiry of extended period. The respondents had also contended that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from his duties during the period 24th September, 1997 to 31st May, 1999 for about 92 days. The petitioner had also been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, however, he was not found suitable. The respondent had contended that the petitioner has not been reverted to the post of conductor on account of any punishment imposed upon him. W.P. (C.) No. 1091 of 2010 Page 3 of 4 The Tribunal noted that the petitioner did not challenge the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee not to promote him to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. By the said order dated 24th September, 1997, 347 conductors and drivers were promoted and the petitioner was at serial no.320. The promotion order relied on by the petitioner categorically stipulated that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of ATI was on ad-hoc basis and the petitioner was not recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for regular promotion to the post of ATI. Since the petitioner was not recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, the petitioner cannot impugn in the present petition the order whereby the persons junior to the petitioners were recommended for promotion and promoted by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Since the petitioner worked as Assistant Traffic Inspector on account of ad-hoc promotion given to him, the reversion of the petitioner after the expiry of the period which had been extended from time to time, shall not be contrary to any rules and regulations nor any such rules and regulations has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. W.P. (C.) No. 1091 of 2010 Page 4 of 4 The petitioner has also not made a case of malafide on account of his reversion after the expiry of the period of ad-hoc promotion. In the circumstances, no cogent ground has been disclosed by the petitioner to interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated 3rd August, 2009 dismissing his petition seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. March 04, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘k’