The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. Union of lndia, Represented by its Chairman and DGOF, Ordnance Factory Board, tt/inistry of Defence, 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkata - 700001. The Senior General Manager, Ordnance Factory, 'Ministry of Defence, Yeddumailaram P.O. - 5O2 205, Sangareddy District, T.S. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or Direction or Order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of certiorari to call for the records pertains to the order in OA1O21119612019, dated 2610812024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Article 14, 16 and 309 of constitution of lndia and quash the same consequently direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner for the post of Charge Man/ Technical (Chemical) w.e.f. 1810712012 with all consequential benefits lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Factory Order No. 406, dated 1711012012 issued by the 2nd respondent while directing the respondents to reconsider the representation dated 0410712017 of the petitioner, pending disposal of rnain writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. RAM MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI UDAYASREE SADASIVUNI REP SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO Deputy Solicitor General of lndia The Court made the following: ORDER :l- THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN Writ Petition No.34170 of 2025 Order, Heard N{r. I(Ram Murth1,, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Udayasree Sadasivuni, learned counscl represendng NIr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Depury. Solicitor ()eneral of Inclia for rcspondent No.1.

2. Pe titioner applied flor thc posr of Chargeman (Technical/chenr.ical) in pursuance of rhe Notificarion dated 09.08.2011, issued by respo,denr No.2. Against one unreserved vacancy for the said post, petitioner stood third in the merit list. The first candidate in the merit list opted flor a different posr. Therefore, the second candidate in the merit list being Mr. I{Jayapad, was I / promoted against the said vacancy. Thereafter, petitioner pursued his claim for being promoted in place of the ..,| ..L second meritorious candidate- Mr. I(.fayapaul, alleging that he was not qualified as he did not have the requisite B.Sc. degree. During the interregnum, the pr<>motion of Mr. I(Ja.,.apaul was kept in suspension b), the intcrjrrr order dated 1,2.03.201,3, passed by the Cenual Administrative Tribunal, H),derabad Bench, Hyderabad (for shot:t'the Tribunal), in O.r\.No.298 of 2013 However, the said candidate- l\'1r. I(Javapaul approachecl the learned Tribunal and upon consideration of his original degree certificate, the stay was vacared bv tire l I learned Tribunal by order dated 01.10.2013, passed in NzI.A.Nos.850 of 201.3 and 687 of 2013 in O A.No.298 of 201,3. Mr. I(Jayapaul enjoyed the promouonal post till \ he died on 25.02.2017. Petitioner herein sought for promotion as against the vacancy now created for the same post on the death of Mr. I(Jayapaul. This has been declined by the learned Tribunal by the impugned order / i-- 3:: dated 26.08.2024. The relevant extracr of the impugned order is reproduced hereunden n9. Fleard both sides and perused the records. 10. The leamed counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had participated in the notification issued for filling up the vacancies of Chargemen (Technical & Non- Technical) through Limited Depanmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for the post Chargeman/T/dtemical. Since onlyone vacancywas notified, which was earmarked for unreserved carcgory the applicant successfully scored the meritorious marls and he was placed in Sl. No.2 of the merit list. The applicant has raised the objection over the candidate at Sl. No.l Sri K Jappaul. According to hirn, the applicant at Sr.1 was not qualified as he did not fulfil the educational criteria required under the said nodfication i.e. he did not obmin the required degree. Thereby, the applicant has submitted his detailed representation. However, the respondent depanment had considered the same. Flence, being aggriev'ed, the applicant has approached this Tribunal. In the eadier round of litigation, this Tribunal vide its onCer dated 15.L1.20L7, passed in O.L/298/2013, directed the respondents to consider the representation o[ the applicant and passed a detailed reasoned and speaking order. Also, the applicant's interest has been protected by way of interim order dated 06.12.20L8 passed in CP./54/2018. However, subsequentlS when the promotion of the successful candidate at Sr.1 was promoted as Clnrgeman/T/Chemical was suspended, he approached this Tribunal and submitted his original degree cenificate. Accordingly, this Tribunal has allowed his N{.A./850/201,3 & I\'1.A./687 /2013 r'ide its order dated 01.10.2013 and has vacated the interim stay granted. Subsequenth Sri K Jappaul expired on 25.02.2017; therefore, the applicant has submimed another represenration dated 04.09.20L7. Thereafter, this C-oun has directed to consider the representation of the applicant. However, rhe respondents have rejected the applicant's represenration. Therefore, being aggrieved, the applicant approached this Tribunal in the Presenr o.A

11. It is submitted by the leamed counsel for rhe applicant that as such the applicant was a meritorious candidate and placed at Sr.2, being a meritorious candidare, he ( ( 4 4: i is entitled to the said promotional post. Since tire respondents have not considered the direction given by this Tribunal in errrlier round of litigation, the applicant also filed a Contempt Petition No.54l2018. Accordingly, the respondents passed the speaking order dated L9.12.20t8 and therebS the C.P. has been closed. 12- On the other hanci, the leamed counsel for the respondents v:ehemently opposed the relief on the ground t]rat mere death of the candidate will not give any right to consider the candidatuir of the next meritorious candidate that too after lapse of more than 6-7 years. Since the posts sere filled up in the year ZQll and the panel drawn pursuant to the said selection lapsed, promotion cannot be given automatically. In earlier round of litigation when Coun has granted interim relief in favor of the applicant and subsequendy, when the fac6 were brought out by the private respondent Sri K Jayapaul, this Tribunal has considered his original degree ceftificate, and accordingly, vacated the Interim relief. Tlrcreafter, the private respondent in the earlier O.A lv[r. K Jayapaul, has enjoyed his promotion till his death in 2017 .1\e applicant, who stood at 5r.2, just because of the death of lltlr. K Jappaul, cannot be given promotion autornatically, as the writing list will be there only for one )€ar and that.too i-f the selected candidate has refused the promotion, only then promotion can go to the candidate next in the merit. In the instant case, that is not the position. Fint meritorious candidate acceprcd promotion, and he enjoyed the sarne till his death. It is not permissible rc consider the c,rsc of the applicant for promotion after 6-7 year of the selection.

13. As such, we do not find any merit in the ffIatter. Flence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the O.A is dlsmissed. There shall be no order as to costs." \ \ \

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner subrnits that the promotion of the second meritorious candidate- I&. KJayapaul was in question as he did not fulfill the educational criteria. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for i i being promoted as against the same single vacancy ought to have been allowed by the learned Tribunal once Mr. KJappaul expired on 25.02.20L7.

4. X[e are unable to agree to the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner. The panel was created in 2}ll with a Iife span of one War. The second meritorious candidate had joined the said post and during the pendency of the litigation, he died on 25.02.2017. Such yacancy, tf. arry, created on the death of the incumbent, who had already joined, would not conf er any right on the next candidate in the merit list i.e., the petitioner. Moreover, the learned Tribunal had also considered the original degree certificate adduced by It&. KJappaul and vacated the interim suspension, by which his promotion was kept in abepnce. I t I I I I ,i I I "\ ::6::

5. In such circumstances, learned Tribtrnal rightly refused to allow the prayer of the petirioner for being promoted against' the vacancy filled through Limited Departmental Competitive Examinarion in the War 2Afi ircelf by the second meritorious candidate. \We do not find any enor in the impugned order dated 26.08.2024, passed bythe leamed Tribunal in O.ANo.298 of 201.3.

6. The \Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is. accordingly, dismissed. No cosrs. fu a sequel, miscellaneous peritions, pending rf any,, stand closed. \ To, ... I SD/.A. JAYASREE ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI. K. RAM MURTHY, Advocate 2. One CC to SRI. N BHUJANGA RAO, DePutY loPUCl

3. Two CD CoPies f"l' (f General of lndia HIGH COURT DATED i2611112025 4e? .1ilS 5 14 16j l, ,(,, 1g tEC M I /a o + D,- { ORDER WP.No.34170 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1, \x-