The Tribunal while numbericing the admitted position that prior to 1969, the third respondent was junior to the appellant found from records valid reasons for overlooking the claims of the appellant.
It was number stop gap arrangement but it was on the action of reversion of the applicant that Govind Sahai was promoted.
So, naturally, Govind sahai was entitled for promotion earlier than the applicant and there is numberhing wrong in it.
359/86.
The promotion of Govind Sahai of Higher post on 24.4.1976 is also good as he was holding the post of the Chargeman from 1969 whereas the applicant was holding the post from 1971.
Aggrieved by that, the appellant challenged that order of promotion by filing Writ Petition Civil No.
153 of 1978 in the High Court of Rajasthan which was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and numbered as T.A.No.
It is also seen from the records that as early as in 1976.
The representation made by the appellant to treat him as a senior to Govind Sahai was rejected by the Railway Board in their companymunication numberRB OSD ER/279/96/Aii dated 4.5.1976.
Venkataswami.
According to the appellant, the said govind Sahai was junior to hm as Diesel Chargeman C Grade and the promotion of the said Govind Sahai overlooking seniority of petitioner was liable to be quashed.
The third respondent Govind sahai was promoted by a order dated 24.4.1976 as Diesel Foreman.
j. Leave granted.
