Skip to content


Raghunandan Prasad Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 699 of 1974
Judge
Reported in1981WLN(UC)254
AppellantRaghunandan Prasad Sharma
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....there is no reasonable ground to assail appointment of respondent.; the letter of the director, defence laboratory, jodhpur dated february 24, 1972 (exhibit 5) shows that verma was appointed by the procedure of direct recruitment and not by promotion and as such the grievance of the petitioner that his claim of seniority was ignored has no basis whatsoever.;the respondent no. 3, who was also similarly working on the post of a tracer, claims to possess the requisite experience of draftsmanship. there is no reason to dispute the claim of respondent no. 3 in this respect. the appoint met t of respondent no. 3 on the post of draftsman grade ii could not, therefore, be assailed on any reasonable ground.;writ dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of..........of tracer in the defence laboratory, jodhpur, yet the respondent no. 3 has been promoted to the post of draftsman grade ii, ignoring the case of the petitioner and without considering the petitioner's claim for promotion.2. however, the replies filed by the union of india and other respondents go to show that the appointment of respondent no. 3, m.s. verma, on the post of draftsman grade ii was made not by way of promotion but by direct recruitment. it transpires that the post of draftsman grade ii in the defence laboratory could be filled in by promotion and failing that by direct recruitment. the eligibility for promotion has been laid down in the schedule to the class iii non-gazetted (technical, scientific and other non-ministerial) posts in the defence research and development.....
Judgment:

D.P. Gupta, Actg. C.J.

1. The petitioner came to this Court with an allegation that he was senior to the respondent No. 3 M.S. Verma in the cadre of Tracer in the Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur, yet the respondent No. 3 has been promoted to the post of Draftsman Grade II, ignoring the case of the petitioner and without considering the petitioner's claim for promotion.

2. However, the replies filed by the Union of India and other respondents go to show that the appointment of respondent No. 3, M.s. Verma, on the post of Draftsman Grade II was made not by way of promotion but by direct recruitment. It transpires that the post of Draftsman Grade II in the Defence Laboratory could be filled in by promotion and failing that by direct recruitment. The eligibility for promotion has been laid down in the schedule to the class III Non-Gazetted (Technical, Scientific and other Non-Ministerial) Posts in the Defence Research and Development Organisation Rules, 1968. A person must have held post of Draftsman Grade III for a period of three years to make him eligible for promotion to the post of Draftsman Grade II.

3. It is undisputed that neither the petitioner for the respondent No. 3 ever held the post of Draftsman Grade III and both of them were thus not qualified for promotion to the post of Draftsman Grade II. As a matter of fact there was no post of Draftsman Grade III in the Defence Laboratory at Jodhpur and consequently none of the employees of that Laboratory ware eligible for appointment by promotion to the post of Draftsman Grade II. The administration of the Defence Laboratory therefore, resorted to the method of direct recruitment for filling in the post of Draftsman Grade II, which was newly created by the order of Governing Council No. VII dated January 12, 1971, for a period of two years, with effect from 1st April, 1971. The Governing Council No. VII approved the creation of additional Non-Gazetted Class III posts by its order dated May 25, 1971, replacing the earlier order dated January 12, 1971, but the post of Draftsman grade II was sanctioned to be created with effect from April 1, 1971, for a period of two years. An advertisement was issued by the Director, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur, on December 23, 1971, inviting applications for appointment to various posts, including the post of Draftsman Grade II. The qualification for appointment by direct recruitment was recognised Diploma Certificate in Draftsmanship with two years experience in Draftsmanship. The respondent No. 3 M.S. Verma submitted an application but the petitioner who was then on deputation to the Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, since the year, 1967, did not apply for appointment to the post of Draftsman Grade II. M.S. Verma was selected and by the letter of Director, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur, dated February 24, 1972, he was appointed on the post of Draftsman Grade II on probation for a period of two years from the date of his reporting for duty. The letter of the Director, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur dated February 24, 1972 (Exhibit 5) shows that Verma was appointed by the procedure of direct recruitment and not by promotion and as such the grievance of the petitioner that his claim of seniority was ignored has no basis whatsoever.

4. It was then argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of respondent No. 3 M.S. Verma, even if by the method of direct recruitment, should be quashed as Verma was not eligible for such appointment and he did not fulfil the necessary qualification?. According to the learned Counsel, respondent No. 3 had not worked as a Draftsman and as such he could not possess two years experience as a Draftsman. The requisite qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Draftsman Grade II is two years experience in Draftsmanship. The petitioner who was himself a Tracer has claimed that he was doing the work of Draftsman and had experience of Draftsmanship. The respondent No. 3. who was also similarly on the post of a Tracer, claims to possess the requisite experience of Draftsmanship. The respondent No. 3 who was also similarly working on the past of a Tracer claims to possess the requisite experience of Draftsmanship. There is no reason to dispute the claim of respondent No. 3 in this respect. The appointment of respondent No. 3 on the post of Draftsman Grade II could not, therefore, be assailed on any reasonable ground.

5. The writ petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.

6. The parties are left to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //