IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 6907 of 2008 Between: S. Chandrasekhar Sastry S/o S. Gopalakrishna Murthy O/o The Senior Section Engineer (Track Mechine) South Central Railway. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, Rep. by General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2 The Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 3 The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad 4 The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a direction, order or writ more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari, by Calling for the record relating to and connected with the order in Original Application No. 79 of 2006 dated 26-09-2007 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, and set a side the same and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as section Engineer and Senior Section Engineer having regard to the fact of his position in the select list dated 16-10-2001 of Junior Engineer-I, and having regard to the date of effect and completion of the penalties that accrued out of the charge memos dated 24-05-1996 and 23-09-2002 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRK.R.K.V. PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent : SMT.PUSHPINDER KAUR FOR RMAPP The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 26.9.2007 passed in OA No. 79 of 2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, and to set aside the same directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Section Engineer and Senior Section Engineer, having regard to his position in the select list dated 16.10.2001 of Junior Engineer – I and having regard to the date of effect and completion of the penalties, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner herein filed the above OA praying to direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion as Section Engineer and Senior Section Engineer in accordance with the Railway Board’s instructions dated 3.6.2004 vide Serial Circular No.74/2004. The petitioner was appointed on 13.5.1991 as Apprentice Chargeman- B, which is presently known as Junior Engineer Grade – II in Civil Engineering Department and completed the apprenticeship in May,1992. He was promoted as Junior Engineer-I vide Memo dated 16.10.2001. The petitioner was issued with a major penalty charge sheet vide Memo dated 24.5.1996 withholding annual increments for a period of four years with cumulative effect, which, according to the petitioner is concluded on 31.12.2002. Subsequently, his name has been cleared for the post of Junior Engineer. While so, the petitioner was issued with another charge sheet dated 23.9.2002, which culminated into imposition of a minor penalty of withholding of increment due on 1.12.2003 for one year with cumulative effect vide order dated 1.5.2003. But the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer Grade – I on 8.9.2003, which according to the petitioner should have been with effect from 1.10.2002, on which date he was free from penalty. However, though he qualified in the written test and viva-voce for the post of Section Engineer, pursuant to the letter dated 25.3.2003, his selection was kept in abeyance. It is also his case that penalty of withholding of annual increments due on 1.12.2003 for a period of one year was imposed on the petitioner, and on appeal, the Appellate Authority enhanced the penalty to that of reduction of post to a lower grade to the post of Junior Engineer II for a recurring period of one year, which was reduced on revision to that of withholding of increment due on 1.9.2005. The applicant made a representation dated 29.7.2005 seeking promotion as Section Engineer from 4.5.2004 after disposal of the revision, which was not considered and the respondents have declared the select list of the Senior Section Engineer on 30.11.2005 without enlisting his name. This action of the respondents was assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal in the above O.A. The case of the respondent is that the as on the date of filling up the vacancies of the Senior Section Engineer, the petitioner’s name was included in the list, but since he was not promoted to the feeder grade of Section Engineer, as on the date of consideration, he was not eligible to be considered for promotion to any higher grade. It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not free from the currency of any penalty. The Tribunal having considered the rival contentions in extenso, dismissed the O.A. on two counts. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted with effect from 8.9.2003, though according to the petitioner, he ought to have been promoted with effect from 1.10.2002, inasmuch as he had completed the penalty period by 30.9.2002. Admittedly, the petitioner did not challenge his promotion orders dated 8.9.2003. In such an event, the contention that he ought to have been promoted on 1.10.2002, at this length of time, cannot be countenanced. As a necessary corollary, it goes without saying that but for his promotion on 8.9.2003 as Junior Engineer-I, the petitioner did not complete the residency period of two years in 2004, entitling him to be considered for promotion to the post of Section Engineer in 2004. These two events are apart from the fact that the petitioner was also imposed punishment of withholding his annual increment due on 1.9.2005 for a period of one year with cumulative effect, which remained unchallenged. Having gone through the entire material available on record, we do not see any reason to differ with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________ S.ASHOK KUMAR, J. April 15, 2008 MAS.