1 D. B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.1292/97 JAGDISH PRAJAPAT V. UNITED INDIA INS.CO. LTD.& ORS. DATE OF ORDER ::: 19/03/2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. Anil Bhandari for Mr. N.M.Lodha, for Appellant. Mr. H.R.Arora for Mr. M.S.Singhvi, for Respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19th August, 1997, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed. The controversy raised in the writ petition was pertaining to promotion to the post of Assistant (Clerical) as per para 26 of the Promotion Policy for Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff, 1976. The petitioner was initially appointed as a member of the sub staff in the Divisional Office of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and, thereafter, he was confirmed in service w.e.f. 28.8.1986. The petitioner was initially not given promotion to the post of Record Keeper, thus he preferred writ petition No.958/89 2 and pursuant to the judgment given therein, the respondents promoted the petitioner vide order dated 2.15.1990 and the benefit of seniority was given w.e.f. 30.6.1989. The claim of the appellant is now that he was further entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant, in view of the fact that the vacancy of the Assistant occurred in the year, 1989 itself. The respondents passed certain orders, denying the benefit of promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant and, thus, these orders were then assailed by the petitioner in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge considered the fact that the qualification of “Prathama” acquired by the petitioner was then de-recognized by the State Government and the Insurance Company also passed an order to this effect on 27.2.1989, wherein it was provided that the qualification of “Prathama”, having de-recognized w.e.f. 1st April, 1985, by the State of Rajasthan, thus, for the purpose of promotion, only those candidates would be considered who had acquired aforesaid qualification prior to 1st April, 1985. Since the petitioner acquired the qualification of “Prathama” on 10.11.1987, that is after the period from 3 where the Insurance Company de-recognized the qualification of “Prathama” and precisely, on that ground, the claim of the petitioner for further promotion to the post of Assistant was declined. The learned Single Judge, considering all those facts, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled for further promotion to the post of Assistant in view of de-recognition of qualification of “Prathama”. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the vacancy of Assistant arose in the year, 1989, thus appellant was having a right of consideration in view of the fact that the respondent-Company issued Circular on 27.2.1989 only, thus right of the petitioner-appellant for promotion was to be considered by the respondents and thereby rejection of the writ petition is not proper. Considering the aforesaid submissions, we have perused the impugned order dated 27.2.1989, by which qualification of “Prathama” was de-recognized w.e.f. 1st April, 1985 itself. In view of the said circular, the petitioner having obtained the qualification of “Prathama” on 4 10.11.1987, i.e., after the cut-off date, the said qualification could not have taken into consideration so as to treat the petitioner appellant eligible for further promotion to the post of Assistant. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge and thus, the appeal so preferred by the appellant to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge is found devoid of merit and hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. (NARAYAN ROY), C.J. scd