H.S. Singh v. Union of India

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)

1. A dead horse is being flogged by the petitioner with the hope that the horse would rise and gallop and the petitioner would enjoy a ride. Unfortunately, dead horses do not canter when flogged.

2. Posting at HQ IMTRAT in Bhutan is considered to be prestigious and the petitioner applied to be posted at IMTRAT by filing an application on 21.3.2002 which was registered at serial No.272. As per policy in force since the year 2000 the applicants were posted at IMTRAT upon being selected and for which they had to undergo the selection process. Upon being cleared, names were kept as per a list prepared.

3. In other words there were two kinds of lists. The first was a list as per serial number of the application received and the second was list of person empanelled to be posted at 2011:DHC:443-DB IMTRAT. It may be noted that persons who were empanelled would be sent to IMTRAT depending upon the vacancies at IMTRAT and those selected would constitute a running list, to be sent to IMTRAT as and when a vacancy arose and their seniority as per the list matured.

4. On 21.4.2005 the policy was altered and as per new policy no running list was to be maintained. It may be noted that by 21.4.2004 no person above priority position 272 of the list of applications received was sent to IMTRAT. As per the new policy persons had to reapply under the new policy and had to undergo a test and an interview to be empanelled and with reference to the panel drawn, vacancies had to be filled up on yearly basis. In other words, the concept of a panel having life co-terminus with the panel year came into vogue.

5. On 19.12.2006 the policy dated 21.4.2005 was done away with and a new policy was put in place, which we note is pari-materia with the policy in place prior to the policy dated 21.4.2005.

6. Petitioner had applied for being considered to be posted at IMTRAT on 5.1.2006, obviously when the policy dated 21.4.2005 was in place.

7. An issue arose with reference to the priority position to be assigned to petitioner’s request dated 5.1.2006 and which we may note has been sorted out in favour of the petitioner by assigning him priority position by treating his application as having been received on 5.1.2006 and not a later date when the request was re-registered.

8. Petitioner desires that his priority at serial No.272 of the priority list maintained when the policy prior to the policy introduced on 21.4.2005 came into force be restored.

9. Obviously, this cannot be done for the simple reason the said priority position pertained to the policy then in force, which policy was changed on 21.4.2005 followed by the new policy, though pari-materia with the last but one policy, introduced on 19.12.2006.

10. The writ petition is dismissed.

11. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE January 25, 2011 mm