CWP No.23750 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.23750 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:20.12.2011 Bikram Parshad and others ..... Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 02.09.2005 and dated 01.10.2008, passed by the respondent-Department and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short the 'Tribunal'). Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are senior to private respondents but have been denied promotion on the premise that they could not pass the “trade test” prescribed for promotion to the next post. It is contended that as respondents did not conduct any test, the promotions of private respondents, who are admittedly junior to the petitioners are illegal and therefore, the impugned orders should be set aside. We have heard counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned orders and have no hesitation in dismissing the petition in limine. CWP No.23750 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The petitioners filed a petition before the Tribunal, challenging the promotion/appointment of private respondents as Packers/Tent Menders by alleging that the trade test was a mere eye- wash, as no written examination was conducted. The petitioners also challenged the promotions on the ground that private respondents are junior and lesser meritorious than the petitioners. The respondents filed replies inter-alia pleading that vacancies to the posts of Packers/Tent Menders were ordered to be filled by conducting a trade test. Out of the petitioners, eight did not apply for the test whereas the others appeared for the trade test and viva voce but could not attain requisite rank in merit. The learned Tribunal considered the matter in detail and held as follows: - “A perusal of the documents on record shows that for promotion to the posts in question, a Board was constituted and the trade test was held on 26th August, 2005. While 8 applicants have not appeared in the same, the rest 4 did appear but could not qualify the trade test. While respondents No.4 to 10 were selected for the post of Packer, respondents 11 to 14 have been selected as Tent Menders. It is not disputed that out of the 12 applicants, 8 did not participate in the trade test. They have, therefore, no locus standi in the matter. Their plea that they had no sufficient time to apply, is not convincing, particularly, when others serving under the same 11 FOD had applied well in time. Nor, it is shown to us that they ever complained to the respondents in this regard. For promotion to the posts of Tent Menders and Packers, clearance of trade test is a pre-condition as per the Recruitment Rules, as noted above. Whosoever clears the same, has a right to promotion, irrespective of the fact that he may be lower in seniority. Thus, seniority alone would not entitle the applicants to claim promotion. The applicants have not alleged any malafide against any of the official respondents. It is settled law that courts should not sit in appeal over the selection made by the departmental CWP No.23750 of 2010 (O&M) -3- authorities, unless the same is in violation of the statutory rules or is based on malafide. In the present case, we don't find any such thing. Thus, no interference is called for with the impugned order- Annexure A-1 by this Tribunal. Consequently, the OA is held to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.” As is apparent from the impugned order, eight of the petitioners did not apply for the trade test. The learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that they have no locus standi to file the petition. The other petitioners appeared in the trade test but could not attain requisite rank in merit. The factual position is not disputed by counsel for the petitioners but it is urged that no written examination was conducted. The argument is factually incorrect as it is clearly averred in the reply filed before the Tribunal that a viva voce and a practical test were conducted. The relevant instructions, do not not mandate the conduct of a written test. We, therefore, find no reason whether in fact or in law to interfere with the impugned orders. Dismissed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 20.12.2011 [NARESH KUMAR SANGHI] shamsher JUDGE CWP No.23750 of 2010 (O&M) -4-