SAROJ KUMARI Vs. KIRAN PARUTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in the present appeal relates to promotion to the post of Child Development and Project Officer (Female). The channel of promotion is from the post of supervisors. The appellant and the private respondents had been appointed as supervisors in the department sometime in 1980. Initially there was no provision for promotion of the supervisors to the post of Child Development and Project Officer (Female). For the first time in 1984, the Rules were amended and source of recruitment to the post of Child Development and Project Officer (Female) was provided 50% by promotion from amongst the graduate supervisors and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment. There was also requirement of seven years' experience then.

(2.) So far as matriculate supervisors are concerned, there was no provision made for their promotion to the post of Child Development and Project Officer and the same position continued even in 1987, when once again the Rules were amended but the only change made was that the experience of seven years was reduced to five years, with which we are not concerned in this case. Then comes the amendment of 1997. According to this amendment, the post of Child Development and Project Officer (Female) was to be filled up, as provided earlier, 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion, but out of that 50% promotion posts, 90% were to be filled up from amongst the graduate supervisors and 10% from amongst matriculate supervisors, that is to say, 10% of the promotee quota was for the first time earmarked for matriculate supervisors. Before 1997, obviously there existed no such provision nor had the matriculate supervisors any such right to be promoted against the posts whichever may have been filled prior to 1997. After the amendment of 1997, undisputedly, 9 posts of Child Development and Project Officer were created. As against these newly created 9 posts, 5 posts were to be filled up by promotion of supervisors and the remaining 4 posts by direct recruitment.

(3.) All the 5 newly created posts earmarked for promotion were filled up from amongst the matriculate supervisors which gave cause of grievance to the graduate supervisors, according to whom only 10% of the 5 promotion posts were liable to be given to the matriculate supervisors, that is to say, at best, 1 post as against 5 posts was available for promotion from amongst matriculate supervisors. This contention has been accepted by the High Court and we feel rightly.