Law: Service Tribunals Act, 1973

Section: 4 (1)(b)

ORDER SHEET                   Through the instant writ petition, petitioner has impugned orders dated 15.05.2014, whereby respondents 4 to 8 were promoted to the post of Controller (News) while representation of the petitioner assailing his supersession was turned down through order dated 29.05.2014. 2- Facts arising out of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Editor in respondentdepartment vide appointment letter dated 01.04.1985, subsequently promoted as Assistant News Editor, and again promoted as News Editor in the year 1996 and on performing his duty successfully and to the satisfaction of his high ups again he was promoted as Deputy Controller in the year 2004; that the petitioner is senior from respondent No. 4 to 8 as per seniority list. The petitioner was superseded by his juniors in past as well vide order dated 14.11.2012 and again superseded on 12.11.2013 and lastly vide impugned order dated 15.05.2014 he was again superseded by his junior who are arrayed in the instant writ petition as respondents No. 4 to 8; that the supersession is against the rules and without assigning any cogent reasons and that the petitioner agitated his right of promotion but the same was rejected vide order dated 29.05.2014, impugned herein. 3- The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being the senior most Deputy Controller News had to be considered for promotion to the post of Controller News by the Selection Board; that the petitioner has been superseded thrice by his juniors without assigning any cogent reasons; that the petitioner on all three occasions had been agitating the matter with the respondent-department but has never received any feedback regarding non-consideration for his promotion; that the supersession of the petitioner is not in accordance with law and rules; that the petitioner has no alternate remedy but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under the Service Tribunal Act , section 4 (1)(b). Reliance is placed upon case law reported as 2013 SCMR 1707; that the respondent through Memorandum dated 02.02.2009, has revised…