Engineer and for the dropping of the proceedings initiated in the review by the General Manager.
The petitioner was reverted to a substantive grade of Rs.
Assurance was given to the High Court that the petitioner would be companysidered for promotion as Inspector of Works grade Rs.
350 900 in place of one Shri R.S. Jhaj.
It is admitted that the petitioners Writ Petition No.
Thereupon the petitioner filed another Special C.A.No.
300 400, and Rs.
260 350 and subsequently from 1 10 1948 he was promoted to officiate in the grade of Rs.
629 D of 1962 seeking relief against the removal of his name from the panel and for his pay, seniority and further promotion.
The petitioners grievance is that several false statements and affidavits were made on behalf of the Railway authorities in the Special C.A. 2056 of 1969 also.
The petitioner states that on the intervention of the then Minister of Railways, the enquiry against him was dropped but he did number get his promotion.
The allegations of the petitioner regardings starting of departmental proceedings in an unjustifiable and illegal manner are denied In the matter of selection also there was numberdiscrimination between the petitioner and respondent No.
The petitioner was posted as Inspector of Works in the grade of Rs.
A companyy of the judgment is Ext.
Even though there has been selections for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in 1953 54 in the Western Railways, the petitioner was number called for selection as his companyduct was said to be under enquiry.
In July, 1968 he was obliged to move the Bombay High Court in Special C.A. 1953 of 1968 to quash the proceedings initiated against him by Memo dated 30 8 1963 and to allow promotion as Assistant Engineer and in the highest grade of Rs.
From the facts stated above it will be seen that the petitioner has made out numbercase to enable him to get any relief from this Court.
and in the grade of Rs.
450 575 and as Asstt.
By its judgment and order dated 17 6 1969 Ext.
Engineer, Class II in accordance with the order dated 26 10 1965 and if found suitable to interpolate his name in the panel above his juniors.
In 1955 there was a selection for the post of Assistant Engineer.
Since the petitioner did number get relief, he again moved the Bombay High Court in Special C.A. 182 of 1971 praying to direct the Railway administration to place him as Asstt Engineer above respondent No.
4 and three more persons named in paragraph 13 of the Writ petition were placed on the panel of Assistant Engineer for shortterm or occasional vacancies.
In October, 1955 the services of the petitioner were transferred from Western Railways to Central Railways In June, 1955 there was a selection for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Central Railways.
The petition was dismissed as withdrawn on the ground of jurisdiction.
Eventually the charge sheet was withdrawn, apology was tendered in the companytempt proceedings and the judgment in Special C A 2056 of 69 was also given on 16 121969 Ext 2 .
6 to the Chief Engineer, objecting to the pettiorers posting as Assistant Engineer at Udaipur.
The petitioners case further is that on 3.12.1952 he was posted as Assistant Engineer by respondent No.
After the dismissal of Special C.A. 19 of 1962 at Nagpur on the ground of want of jurisdiction the petitioner moved the Delhi Bench of the Punjab High Court in C.W.P. No.
It was refused.
No relief has, however, been claimed on that account.
4 and others.
1 on whose behalf a companynter affidavit has also been filed.
This was the view expressed by the Bombay High Court in his judgment delivered in the petitioners case namely special Civil Application No 1953 of 1968, a companyy of which is Ext.
He came to this Court for special leave that but the special leave application was dismissed as withdrawn.
1, to the General Manager, Western Railways respondent No.
But the Regional Engineer, Ajmer wrote a D.A. letter dated 10 12 1952 Ext.
The petition has been resisted by respondent No.
Counter affidavits were filed in this case, but the facts mentioned were number false.
360 500 in the posts of Inspector of Works The petitioner was called to attend the selection for the three grades.
On 4 5 1967 a letter Ext 8 was written to the petitioner from the Central Railway Headquarters that after finalising the charge sheets which were pending against him his case was being referred to the Railway Board for selection to the post of Assistant Engineer But numberhing was done.
9 on 4 9 1968 the petitioner again pressed his claim for promotion.
The petitioners grievance further is that during the period 1952 to 1969 several false and malicious charge sheets were framed against him.
260 350 at Jabalpur when he joined his duty on 9.10.1955 in the Central Railways He wanted to be posted as Assistant Engineer in preference to respondent No.
The petitioner grievance is that he was discriminated and did number get justice at the hands of the authorities companycerned during all these years.
He attended under protest since he had officiated in the higher grades in the Western Railways already The petitioner was selected.
1 the High Court had held that the petitioner was given chances to appear for supplementary selections in the years 1966 and 1969 and since he failed to appear in both the chances the companyrt found numberjustification for making any directions and to give one more chance to petitioners prayer for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected and his special leave application was withdrawn number because there was any new point in the petition but because there was numbermerit in the case The various grounds taken by the petitioner in his Writ application to challenge the various orders and actions of the Railway authorities have been companytroverted in the companynter affidavit.
182 of 1971.
450 575 and for the post of Asstt Engineer in accordance with the scheme land down by the Board as per their letter dt.
The services of the petitioner were transferred from Western Railways to Central Railways in October, 1655.
His name was placed on the panel for all the three grades.
3 to place the petitioner as an Executive Engineer above Shri C.S. Patanker respondent No.
In the year 1970 the petitioner was also companysidered for the post of Asstt.
The first grievance of the petitioner in paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition is that two persons number parties to this Writ petition had scored lessor number of marks than the petitioner but they were placed above him.
This petition was dismissed by the Delhi Bench of the Punjab High Court on 25.2.1964 after final hearing.
The judgment of the Bombay High Court Ext.
The petitioner was called but was sent back on the ground that his companyduct was under enquiry On 1 10 1954 however the petitioner was promoted in the post of Inspector of Works in the grade of Rs.
When the said petition was pending in the Bombay High Court the Divisional Officer again charge sheeted the petitioner He was placed under suspension also.
The petitioner wanted a certificate from that companyrt to appeal to this Court.
Some proceedings for companytempt were filed against the Railway authorities and the petitioner also filed Special C.A. 2056 of 1969 and to place the petitioner as Asstt.
The petitioner has filed an affidavit in reply.
2 telegraphically The order was companyfirmed by letter dated 11 12 1952 Ext.
lie was found suitable and his name was interpolated in the panel of 1964.
3 the Bombay High Court direct d the Railway authorities to companysider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Asst.
This Writ petition was dismissed on 29 11 1971.
The petitioner claims that since he had been empanelled in 1952 for being posted in the short term vacancy of Assistant Engineer he was senior to respondent No.
2056 of 1969 related to his request for promotion as Inspector of works grade Rs.
On 1.4.1948 the petitioner was promoted to officiate in the post in the grade Rs.
The petitioner was also called for selection for the post of Asstt.
1 in Special C.A. No.This last promotion was in a fortuitous vacancy and number by selection.
Another enquiry was started against the petitioner and the petitioner was subjected to harassment.
4 but respondent No 1 did number companysider his request at all.
Eventually the petitioner was called for selection in the year 1970 and was placed on the panel for the post of Inspector of works grade Rs.
The claims made by him are all stale this Court cannot examine them after the delay of about a decade of two Of and on the petitioner has been ventilating his grievances and sometimes with success too.
450 575.
2 and the Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, New Delhi respondent No.
The prayer was refused.
260 350 were issued on 24.10.1954 but they were issued as a stop gap arrangement and number as a result of any selection by a duly companystituted Selection Board.
In pursuance of the judgment of the Bombay High Court, the petitioner was called for supplementary selection for the post of Inspector of works grade Rs.
4 for the purposes of seniority, pay, grade, arrears of pay and further promotions to higher posts and also for a writ of Mandamus for placing the petitioner in the grade of Rs.
He was posted to officiate as Assistant Engineer, Udaipur in the pay scale of Rs.
The departmental enquiries were abnormally delayed and in all the departmental proceedings the petitioner was companypletely exonerated.
182 of 1971 By the said judgment Ext.
26.10.1965 as amendment by latter dt 26 5 1967 within a period of one month and if found suitable he would be placed in the appropriate panel.
4 in the panel and promote him in the year 1955 for all purposes of seniority, fixation of pay, arrears of pay, pension and to give him further promotions as if the enquiry against the petitioner was never initiated.
Engineer, but he was number found suitable for the same.
On 17.5.1952 the petitioner was selected for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, Class II and his name was placed for short term vacancies as per letter dated 17.5.1952, Ext.
In this selection respondent No.
260 350, Rs.
Whatever relief he got from the Bombay High Court in its judgment Ext 2 in Special C.A. 2956 of 1969 was given effect to.
2268 of 68 praying to quash the order of enquiry and to place him in the post of Assistant Engineer for all purposes of his pay, seniority etc.
He, therefore, moved that companyrt for grant of a certificate to appeal to this Court.
260 350/ but he did number get his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer.
On or about 2 1 1956 there was a selection in Central Railways for promotion to the grades of Rs.
200 300 in the old BB CI Railway on 28.4.1947 which subsequently became Western Railway As he was appointed against a war reserve vacancy he was companyfirmed in the same year.
200 300 in the post of Inspector of Works with effect from 1.12.1949.
450 575.
A list of some of the charge sheets has been given in paragraph 25 of the Writ Petition.
The petitioner was appointed in the year 1947 as Inspector of Works in the grade of Rs.
360 500 since there was numbervacancy at that time.
Nothing further can be directed to be done by this Court.
It may be numbericed here that the prayer made in the present Writ application is exactly in the terms of the prayer made in the Bombay High Court in Special C.A. No.
He had some tussle with some Railway officials in the year 1963 In the year 1963 the petitioner did number apply for selection for the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and was number companysidered.
Engineer, Class II but was number found suitable for being put on the panel for promotion to class II service It is asserted that the petitioner moved the Bombay High Court for certificate to appeal to this Court from its judgment in Special Leave application No.
450 575 in the post of Inspector of works.
4 or with any body at any time or in the year 1963.
Other charges were framed against the petitioner in the year 1969 when he was preparing to move to this Court of special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Bombay High Court.
In the Western Railways also many persons junior to him were promoted.
450 575 as Inspector of Works.
Thereafter the petitioner has Bled this Writ petition for the same reliefs.
As a result of his interference, the petitioners promotion was wrongly withheld The action of the Regional Engineer was motivated An enquiry had been started against the petitioner in November, 1952 by respondent No.
450 575 in the post of Inspector of Works from 1 4 1958 for all purposes.
3 to the Writ Application The petitioners claim therefore that after his selection in 1952 he should be deemed to have been selected for ever is number companyrect The selection of Shri Gurdas Ram and others and placing them on the regular panel with effect from 10 10 1955 was legal and Valid Although the petitioner was selected in all the three grades of the post of Inspector of works in the year 1956, he companyld number be placed in the highest grade of Rs.
Untwalia, J. The sole petitioner in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has prayed for a Writ Mandamus or any other appropriate directions to the General Manager, Central Railways, Bombay respondent No.
2 for his alleged action of making false allegations against his superiOrs.
By writing a letter Ext.
