2010 Supreme(SC) 1160

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK
Union of Indian & Others
Versus
A. Durairaj (D)
Civil Appeal No. 1783 of 2005
Decided on : 01-12-2010

Headnote:(a) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Section 21 – Respondent accepting department’s decision in 1976 that he was colour blind and therefore his non-selection– Could not reopen the same in 1999-2000 on ground of him not being found colour blind in 1998 and 2000 – Delay and laches – Even in absence of prescribed limitation, any belated challenge would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. (Para 12, 13)

       (2010) 2 SCC 58 – Relied upon

       (b) Service law – Promotion – Judicial Review – Respondent found colour blind in 1976 – Tests in 1999 and 2000 by advanced techniques and instruments showing colour impairment – No negligence or carelessness in earlier test – No-promotion of respondent – No injustice done. (Para 17, 18)

       (c) Service law – Promotion – Judicial Review – Respondent’s non-promotion to ad hoc post on failing in medical test not illegal – His further non-promotion on regular basis due to failure at examination – His non-promotion on ad hoc basis having no bearing on his chances of promotion on regular basis – Grant of compensation by High Court for los of opportunity etc. to respondent – Not justified. (Para 19)

       Facts of the case:

       The respondent, a diploma holder in mechanical engineering belonging to a schedule caste, while working as a Senior Section Engineer, Signal and Telecommunications, Southern Railways, in the year 1976, was considered alongwith others, for adhoc promotion to the post of Asst. Signal and Telecommunication Engineer (ASTE). As the respondent was found to be colour blind, he was not given ad hoc promotion as ASTE.

       In the year 1980, the respondent appeared for the written examination for regular promotion to Class II Group ’B’ Services (including ASTE), but failed to qualify and was not promoted.

       In 1981, the post of ASTE was declared to be a ‘safety category’ post, which meant that the candidates should be free from colour blindness apart from being medically fit. Though there were several subsequent examinations for promotion to the post of ASTE, the respondent did not participate. After 1976, the respondent, however, made several attempts to find a cure for the colour blindness and continued to consult various doctors in India and abroad.

       When the respondent acquired a B.E. degree in the year 1998, he was sent for medical examination for being empanelled as an eligible candidate for Group ’B’ promotion. The report of Medical Board was favourable. He was therefore promoted as Asst. Works Manager on ad hoc basis on 24.9.1998. Thereafter the respondent gave representations dated 28.12.1998 and 3.9.1999 contending that he was unjustly refused ad hoc promotion in 1976 on the ground of colour blindness and he should be given such promotion as ASTE with retrospective effect from 1976, as also all consequential promotions.

       The respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

       On direction from CAT the General Manager, Southern Railway directed the respondent for a special medical examination by a committee.

       Respondent again approached the Tribunal for quashing the order dated 8.2.2000 and seeking a direction to the appellants to promote him to the post of Deputy Chief, S&T Workshop with retrospective effect from 1991 when his promotion to the said post became due.

       The Tribunal dismissed the respondent’s application.

       The respondent challenged the decision of the Tribunal before High Court.

       A division bench of the Madras High Court ultimately disposed of the said writ petition holding that on account of the fact that diagnosis in 1976 had denied him advancement in his career it was necessary to compensate him for the loss of opportunity and mental agony and therefore directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.Two lakhs as compensation to the respondent.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court ought to have affirmed the order of the Tribunal dismissing the application of the respondent for retrospective promotion from 1976, on the ground of delay and laches.

       `

       Result:

       Appeal allowed.