W.P(C) No.11438/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No.11438/2009 % Date of Decision: 21.01.2010 Union of India & Others …. Petitioners Through Mr.Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate. Versus Mohd.Ilias …. Respondent Through Nemo. 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 Union of India through the General Manager North-Western Railway has impugned the order dated 21st November, 2008 in OA No.179 of 2008 titled Mohd. Ilyas v. Union of India and others whereby the petitioners have been directed to hold a review selection for the respondent for the post of AEN and consider his claim for promotion from the date his immediate juniors have been promoted. The respondent was functioning in construction organization and he was placed in the provisional panel. Later on a letter dated 19th W.P(C) No.11438/2009 Page 2 of 4 June, 1997 was issued contemplating that the promotion and appropriate order for promotion will be issued after resumption of the division. Another letter on 24th October, 1997 was issued by Northern Railways reflecting that the respondent was posted at construction organization and the Bikaner Division was intimated to intimate the respondent about his promotion. The respondent thereafter was promoted in the grade of Rs.2000-3200 (RPS) with effect from 19th June, 1997. Though the respondent was promoted on 19th June, 1997, however, later on another eligibility list was prepared where the date of promotion of the respondent was shown as 24th October, 1997 which was challenged by the respondent on the ground that his promotion ought to be from 19th June, 1997 as by considering his promotion from 24th October, 1997 he has been ousted from the zone of consideration and consequently his right for participation in the selection process had been infringed without any reasonable basis. The plea of the respondent was contested by the petitioners contending inter alia that the order passed on 19th June, 1997 was not a promotion order but the respondent was placed in provisional panel only and in fact the promotion of the respondent was effected by order dated 24th October, 1997. It was contended that therefore, the date of respondent’s promotion has to be reckoned as 24th October, 1997. The W.P(C) No.11438/2009 Page 3 of 4 date of promotion of respondent from 24th October, 1997 was also buttressed on the basis of a seniority list issued by Bikaner Division in 2001 which also stipulated the date of promotion as 24th October, 1997. After considering the respective contentions of the parties, the Tribunal noted that the integrated seniority list of 2003 was issued by the petitioners where the date of promotion of the respondent has been shown as 19th June, 1997 and not 24th October, 1997. In the circumstances, it was noted that the integrated seniority list of 2003 shall override the seniority list prepared in 2001 by the Bikaner Division. Since the seniority of the respondent given in the integrated list in 2003 is from 19th June, 1997, therefore the seniority given from 24th October, 1997 was held to be incorrect. It was further held that the petitioners cannot be allowed to contend that the order passed on 19th June, 1997 was not a promotion order but the placement of the respondent in a provisional panel only. Consequently, the Tribunal has held that if the seniority of the respondent is to be reckoned from 19th June, 1997 and not from 24th October, 1997, petitioners shall be liable to hold a review selection for the respondent for the post of AEN and to consider his claim for promotion from the date his immediate juniors have been promoted. W.P(C) No.11438/2009 Page 4 of 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners cannot dispute that the respondent is entitled for promotion from the date his immediate juniors have been promoted. This also cannot be disputed by them that integrated seniority list of 2003 shows the date of promotion of the respondent as 19th June, 1997. In the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. There is no illegality or such irregularity which will require any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. January 21, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘k/Dev’