This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), Allahabad Bench. The appellant who had been appointed as a Sanitary Inspector in the year 1964, claimed one of the upgraded posts of Senior Health Inspector on the ground that 50 per cent of the cadre of Sanitary Inspector having been upgraded on 1-1-1979, on the basis of his seniority he was entitled to one of those posts. It may be stated that subsequent to 1-1-1979, the appellant faced departmental proceedings and after finding him guilty, certain punishment had been inflicted upon him. But, that punishment was ultimately quashed by an order of the Tribunal dated 29-6-1988. After the said punishment was quashed, the appellant again made a representation for getting one of those upgraded posts as well as for consideration of his case to the post of Chief Health Inspector which, according to him, was due in the year 1984, but having been unsuccessful therein, he approached the Tribunal again. The stand of the Railway Administration before the Tribunal however was that on 1-1-1979 the appellants case for one of the upgraded posts was duly considered by the appropriate authority, but in view of the adverse entries in his character roll for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78, the appellant was not promoted. The appellant, subsequent to the filing of the counter-affidavit by the Railway Administration, filed rejoinder-affidavit as it appears from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal but never took the stand that the so-called adverse entries for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 had not been communicated to him. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment having negatived the claim of the appellant, the present appeal has been preferred.

It is contended before us by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the uncommunicated adverse entries could not have been the basis for denying the relief of getting one of the upgraded posts. It has also been contended that to get one of the upgraded posts does not involve any promotion and therefore on the basis of his seniority, the appellant was entitled to get one of the upgraded posts. It is contended on the behalf of the Railway Administration, on the other hand, that the procedure adopted for filling up of the upgraded posts, was same as those of selection posts and, therefore, the authority was justified in examining the service records of the employee to decide whether the employee would be entitled to the upgraded posts.

In view of the prescribed procedure of the Railway Administration, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that an employee is entitled to get the upgraded post as of right automatically and there cannot be any process of selection. So far as the question of non-communication of the adverse entry relating to the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 is concerned, in view of the positive stand taken by the Railway Administration in their counter-affidavit before the Tribunal and the same not having been refuted in the rejoinder-affidavit filed by the appellant before the Tribunal though two rejoinder-affidavits had been filed, it is difficult for us to accept the stand that the adverse entries have not been communicated to the appellant for those two years. In the aforesaid premises, we see no infirmity with the impugned order of the Tribunal requiring our interference. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.