@> HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Singie Bench : Hon’hle Shri H.L. Dattu, C.J. Writ Pemion No.3538 of 1997 : Om Kumar Arya, san of Late 8hr} H‘S. Ania, PETITIONER aged abcut 37 year-s, Occupation Pharmacist in N.T‘P.C. Hospitai, Korba, rasident of B4219, Krishna Vihar at P.O‘ Jamnipali, (NTPC Town'ship) ‘Distt; Buaspur MP. Vs. N.T.P.C. Korba, through its General, Manager, at P‘O. Vikas Bhawan, NTPC Korba, Distt: Bilaspur MP. 2. Chief Personnef Manager, NTPC, K$TPS, Vikas Bhawan, Korba, Distt: Bilaspur MP. 3. Chairman, and Managing Director, ,(C.M.D‘) NTPC Ltd, Corporate Centre, scope complex NTPC Bhawan 7 institutional Area Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003. 4. Mr. B. Jha Manager, (PM), NTPC, KSTPS RESPONDENTS 1 . ' Vikas Bhawan, Korba, Distt: Bilaspur MP. 5. Chief Medical Officer, NTPC, Hospital Jamnipali, Korba, PO. Jamnipaii, Distt: Bilaspur MP. 495 450. NTPC Farakka through its General Manager at Farraxka West Bengal workrng as Pharmacist in executive Cadre Le. E-‘l at NTPC Hospital Farakka (West Bengal) 7. Sailen Mukhariee son of not known Beni Madhav Gupta, son of not known, Administrative Ofmrer, NTPC, Hospital Jamnlpali Distt: Bilaspur MP. 495 450. Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the gonstitutron 9f lndia Present Shn DN Pralapati counsel for the petitioner Shri PS Koshy, counsel for respondents No 1 to 6 & 8 (PasseocRtsiE gaRMEy, 2007) The petitioner is an employee of respondents - NTPC, Korba. The respondents had issued an advertisement in a newspaper inviting applications for appointment to the post of Pharmacist Gr.-lV. Pursuant to the advertisement so issued, the petitioner was one of the applicants. Since he had the necessary qualifications he was appointed as Pharmacist Gr.-lv by issuing a letter of appointment dated 04.09.1984. The petitioner joined service on 05.10.1984, it is /’/ V’” ‘ . ’ ~ ,. € the case of the petitioner before this Court that he possesses Engineering Dipioma, Pham‘1acist Diploma and P.G. Diplomaand he shouid be promoted to the category of the Supervisory Gr.-7. Since his representation flied before the authorities was not considered in a proper perspective, the petitioner is before this Court, in this writ petition fiied under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. r The reliefs sought for by the petitioner are as under : “ 1. That the respondents be commanded by a writ of mandamus to produce all service rulesiintemal circulars applicable to the induction and promotion of a diploma pharmacist in the NTPc. ' 2. The respondent No.6 may kindly be commanded by a writ of mandamus to produce all service records along with service book reiating to respondent No.7 who is appointed in the Supervisory cadre in the establishment of NTPC, Farakka. _ 3. ‘That the respondents No.1,2,3,4 and 5 may kindly be commanded by a writ of mandamus to grant benefit of appointment at S—1 level which is the induction level for diploma holders to the petitioner in the cadre of S-‘l cadre and also subsequent promotion benems in the executive cadre on the time bound promotion for which the petitioner is entitled i.e. at the level of executive Cr. iv E-4 and above. 4. That the petitioner be also paid the entire service benefits including back-wages from the date of appointment taking his appointment in the supervisory cadre. Weightage of the prior experience should also be given to the petitioner.” t . (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner Shrl D.N. Prajapati would submit that since the petitioner had Pharmacist Diploma qualification and also P.G. Diploma, he should have been appointed to the post of S-‘l category. Apart from that, he would submit that though a request was made to promote the petitioner to the next higher cadre in supervisory cadre, the same has not been considered by the respondents, therefore, he requests this Court to issue an appropriate direction to the respondents. Along with the writ petition, he has also produced the chart //7/ .. which is maintained by the respondents for promotion tolnext higher cadre. The chart pertains to mechanical maintenance grade employees (3) Respondents have med their detailed counter, In that, firstly they submit that the advertised post was Phamacist Gr.-lV and the petitioner had applied for the said post. Taking into consideration the educational qualmcations of the petitioner at the time of initial appointment, they have appointed him to the post of Pharmacist Gr.-iV which is an advertised post. Apart from that, they have also produced the channel of promotion for Pharmacists working in NTPC. (4) The one and only question that requires to be considered by this Court is whether the petitioner is justified in claiming for appointment to the Supervisory cadre, when the advertisement itself was for the post of Pharmacist Gr.lV. Secondly, whether the petitioner has any right to claim for promotion to the post of Supervisory cadre. (5) The respondents along with their retum have filed the advertisement issued by them sometime in the year 1984 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Pharmacist Gr.lV. The petitioner though had higher qualification, the respondents had thought it fit to appoint him on the aforesaid post since the advertised post was only Pharmacist Gr lV. The petitioner had accepted the post offered to him by the respondents in the letter of appointment issued on 04.09.1984 and further he had joined the service of respondents on 051 0,1984. it is for the first time in the year 1997 the petitioner had made out a grievance that since 'he had better educational qualifications, he should have been appointed to the post of Supervisory cadre. in my opinion, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also the assertion made by the petitioner in the writ petition has no merit whatsoever. if for any reason, the petitioner was aggrieved by the appointment that was issued sometime in the year 1984, he should have called in question the same before an appropriate forum within a reasonable time. By tiling a writ petition in the year 1997, the ,7 r *\ / H wb petitioner cannot question the appointment that was made by the respondents in the year 1984. On that ground alone, the petitioner requires to be rejected. (6) The respondents have produced along with their retum the channel of promotion for the post of Pharmacist Gr.lV. The next promotional post of Pharmacist Gr.lV is Pharmacist Gr.lll and Phannaoist Gr.ll_ and if a person possesses Pharmacist Diploma and also successful in the interview that would be conducted by the employer, then he can be posted to the post of Junior Supervisor S-1 grade. The next promotional post of Junior Supervisor 8-1 grade is Supervisor Grade-ll, Supervisor Grade-l etc. (7) The petitioner merely because he possesses a Pharmacist Dipioma qualification cannot either seek promotion to the next promotions! post of Supervisory cadre. He has to wait for his tum. lt is only when he comes within the zone of consideration for promotion to the next higher cadre and if his case is ” not considered by the respondents then only he can make out grievance before this Court. ln that view of the matter, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. Sd I- Chief Justice