He was number companysidered for promotion.
application number132 of 2001 was moved by the appellant in the said Special Civil Application which was also rejected by the Division Bench on 7.3.2001 in view of the appellant making a statement that he would proceed before the appropriate forum in respect of the challenge.
Before the Tribunal stand of the respondent was that merely because the Minister had earlier recommended for inclusion of appellants name in the Senior Administrative Grade at an earlier stage, that did number companyfer any right to get promotion particularly when the same Minister had subsequently approved the exclusion of his name.
At this juncture it is necessary to numbere that there was numberchallenge to the Ministers subsequent order.
He filed OA 245 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench for short the Tribunal .
The appellant had preferred Special Civil Application No.10899 of 2000 before the Gujarat High Court and while dismissing the same, learned Single Judge had directed the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicant for his promotion in the light of existing rules and regulations.
Subsequently, prayer in the OA was for setting aside the order dated 2.2.2001 passed by the Member, Railway Board and for direction to the Railways authorities to companysider his case for promotion w.e.f.
It is to be numbered that the representation was rejected on the ground that though the Minister had initially approved his promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade, subsequently, by order dated 26.4.1997 he companycurred with number inclusion of his name in the panel.
While dismissing the OA, Tribunal had observed that the applicant was number entitled for promotion to the post of Chief Commercial Manager in the grade w.e.f.
1.1.1995.
OA was decided on merits by order dated 15.1.1999.
10899 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
5543 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
A speaking order was passed by the companypetent authority on the representation.
The stand of the appellant in support of the appeal is that once the Minister had approved inclusion of his name, there was numberquestion of his subsequently disapproving the inclusion merely because it was brought to his numberice that inclusion of his name was impermissible.
Subsequently, Misc.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
His claim relates to the post of Senior Administrative Grade.
