T SHAIR SAHEB Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions and the respondents other than respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (the State and the Deputy Commissioner) are all first division clerks at present. Respondents other " than respondents 1 and 2 are the persons in regard to whose promotions the petitioners feel aggrieved. These respondents are referred to as respondents hereinafter.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the petitioners are seniors to the respondents. The petitioners are aggrieved with respect to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner made on 9th January 1965 and 14th September 1965. It is not disputed that on these two dates the petitioners had passed qualifying examinations required for promotion. The order dated 9th January 1965 and the one dated 14th September 1965 are marked as An-nexures 'G' and 'H' respectively. In these orders respondents who are juniors are promoted as first division clerks while the petitioners are promoted long afterwards. It is the grievance of the petitioners that their claims were not considered for promotion when Annexures 'G' and 1H' were issued promoting the juniors of the petitioners as first division clerks. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State it is stated that the petitioners were not qualified on the date the vacancies arose. Though in the aforesaid affidavit it is mentioned that the vacancies arose on 13-3-1959, there is no basis to establish the said fact. A reference is made to a direction of this Court in W.P. No. 654 of 1962 (Mys), that the claims of all officials qualified for promotion as on 13-3-1959 should be considered. It appears to us that we are really not concerned with what actually transpired in W. P. No. 654 of 1962 (Mys), so far as the facts are concerned. On the facts of this case, it is clear that the promotions were made on 9th January 1965 and 14th September 1965. The contention advanced on behalf of the State is that the qualifications of the petitioners for promotions should be considered with reference to the date on which the vacancies occurred and not the date on which promotions are made. From the affidavits filed by the petitioners it can be gathered that they had not acquired the requisite qualifications for promotion on 13-3-1959. But this is not of much consequence as it is admitted that by the date of promotion under Annexures 'G1 and 'H' the petitioners had acquired the requisite qualifications. So the only question is even if we take that the vacancies arose on 13-3-1959 whether the petitioners would be disqualified from being considered for promotion or not. This depends upon the legal position whether the qualification of the person for purposes of promotion should be taken into consideration with reference to the date of vacancy or the date on which the vacancy is filled by promotion. In support of the proposition that it is the date of vacancy with reference to which the qualification of a person for promotion is to be considered, our attention was drawn to an observation in Writ Petn. No. 1111 of 1965 (Mys), which is as follows:-

(3.) The petitioners have sought for relief quashing the orders Annexures 'G' and 'H'. It is unnecessary to grant this prayer. The petitioners have also asked for a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent namely the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary to consider the petitioners' case on merits for promotion with effect from 9/1/1965 assigning them a ranking senior to the respondents. The petitioners are entitled to relief in this regard. Therefore we issue a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary to consider whether the petitioners should have been promoted on the relevant date, viz., 9/1/1965 as first division clerks when officers junior to them were promoted and if so, ranking should be assigned to them and all the consequential monetary benefits should be allowed to them. These writ petitions are allowed in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.