IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17379 of 2010 Uma Kant Prasad son of Late Chotelal Razak, resident of Mohalla- Sadar Bazar, P.O. Jamalpur, District-Munger, Ex-Deputy Workshop Superintendent/Erector, later termed as Section Engineer in the Eastern Railway Workshop at and P.O. Jamalpur, P.S.Jamalpur,District-Munger. Petitioner. Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through its General Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place, 17, Nataji Subash Road, Kolkata-1 2.The Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place, 17, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-1 3.The Chief Works Manager, Railway Workshop at & P.O. Jamalpur, District- Munger,Bihar 4.The Workshop Personnel Officer in the Railway Workshop at & P.O.Jamalpur,District-Munger. Respondents. ------- For petitioner : Mr.Amar Nath Jha, Advocate For respondents: Mr.Anil Singh, Advocate. ------- 3. 28.3.2011. The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order passed in O.A.No.399 of 2006 dated 24th May, 2010 and for quashing the rejection of his claim vide letter dated 13.2.2006 and also for a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for promotion as Shop Superintendent (Erector) under Restructuring Scheme effective from 1.3.1993 or from 1.2.1994 with consequential benefits. 2 The main case of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondent railways to grant him promotion to the post of Shop Superintendent taking in view the circulars of the respondent railways for promotion with effect from 1.2.1993 where he was at serial no.21 of the seniority list. According to the petitioner, on the ratio raising from 10% to 17%, the petitioner being from Scheduled Caste, was to be given his quota. The petitioner, being the next Scheduled caste candidate, was not promoted to the said post. On being rejected his claim, the petitioner, chosen to file O.A.No.297 of 2005 which was disposed of on 22.4.1999 with certain directions directing the petitioner to file representation. However, in compliance of the order, he filed the representation which was disposed of rejecting his claim. Subsequently, he chosen to file another representation dated 25.2.2001 against the order passed by the Tribunal. On the representation dated 2.5.2001 filed before the respondents authority at Jamalpur, a reasoned order has been passed by the authorities which was 3 challenged in the O.A. and the Tribunal rejected the application giving the reasons in detail. The petitioner has chosen to file the said representation raising the grievance that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and accordingly, his being the Scheduled Caste candidate, should have been given the promotion as the railways has 16 post vacant in the restructuring scheme. However, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner voluntarily retired with effect from 31.1.2001 while he was in service. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner pleading that the petitioner was making his claim for promotion on fake grounds as he did not fulfill the criteria for promotion. As the order itself indicates that the petitioner, in the event, was offered for undergoing pre-promotional training, but he had not chosen to do so. Again in the year 1999, for filling up the posts of Shop Superintendent, the petitioner was asked to undergo pre-promotional training but he 4 again did not undergo the said training nor appeared at the test rather he took voluntary retirement w.e.f.31.1.2001. For the reasons his case could not be considered as he had not undergone the said training. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no need to undergo such training or appear in the aforesaid test and argued that even though the petitioner took voluntary retirement, his claim for promotion would not get defeated. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner raised before the Tribunal that 11 posts of Shop Superintendent were vacant due to raise in 10% to 17% of the quotas which according to us is without any basis. The petitioner was not able to substantiate such contention with any material. In this connection, altogether four arguments have been advanced before us. Firstly, that the posts were raised from 10% to 17% and on the vacant post, the petitioner should have been promoted from reserved quota. We find that in the absence of any 5 vacant post, the petitioner can not claim promotion from the reserved quota. For the reasons that the petitioner was at serial no.21 in the seniority list, the persons senior to him were promoted as they had undergone the pre-promotional training and had appeared in the required test for promotion. Secondly, the petitioner can not make claim for promotion for the reasons that he was at serial no.21 and on asking to undergo pre-promotional training and appearing for test, he did not comply the order. Thirdly, the petitioner has not undergone the said training and did not appear in the ability test as per the letter dated 3.8.1999 issued by the railways. Under these circumstances, we find that the petitioner had not fulfilled the criteria for his promotion to the post of Shop Superintendent in his department. Fourthly, the petitioner took the voluntary retirement on 31.1.2001 and filed O.A. in the year 2006. Hence, his claim can not be entertained. 6 We are of the opinion that the petitioner’s claim in the writ petition does not find favour and the same is rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ahk (T.Meena Kumari, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)