-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.6546 OF 2004 NO.6546 OF 2004 NO.6546 OF 2004 Mohammed Tauheed ...Petitioner v/s Union of India and ors. ...Respondents Mr S.P. Saxena and Mr A.S. Rao for Petitioner. Mr S.M. Shah with Mr R.C. Master for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D. DESHPANDE JJ. DATE : 23RD APRIL 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. By that order, the C.A.T. has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was that the Departmental Promotion Committee prepared a panel for promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant for the year 1994 and included two names because there were two vacancies in the cadre of Senior Technical Assistant. According to the petitioner, one of the person selected viz. Mr S.K. Sarkar declined to accept the promotion. Therefore, according to the petitioner, review should have been held to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to fill in the vacancy which according to the petitioner, Mr Sarkar declined to occupy. The fact whether Sarkar declined to accept promotion is in dispute. The respondents filed their affidavit and disputed the position that Mr Sarkar declined to accept the promotion. It is common ground that if a person refuses to accept promotion, then he has to face adverse consequences. For granting relief to the petitioner, thus, it is obvious that a finding will have to be recorded by the Court that Mr Sarkar refused to accept promotion. Without recording such a finding, it was not -3- possible to consider the case of the petitioner and to grant him any relief. In the face of the dispute raised by the respondents, in our opinion, Mr Sarkar was a necessary party to the proceedings because the C.A.T. could not have recorded a finding that Mr Sarkar declined to accept promotion in the absence of Mr Sarkar as a party. We find from the order of the C.A.T. that the C.A.T. has considered all relevant aspects of the matter. In our opinion, the C.A.T. has rightly observed that the controversy relates to the select list of the year 1994. In view of the passage of time, now issuing any direction in relation to preparation of selection list for the year 1994 may result in disturbing settled position and therefore, in our opinion, the C.A.T. has rightly declined to interfere in favour of the petitioner. Petition fails, rule is discharged with no order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( N.D. DESHPANDE J.)