NANJUNDAYYA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only relief pressed at the time of hearing, by Sri H. B. Datar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is that we should direct the State of Mysore and the Director of Printing, Stationery and Publication, Bangalore (respondents 1 and 2 respectively), to promote the petitioner as an overseer with effect from 1 December 1961 and as a supervisor with effect from 1 April 1963, and further to give him all consequential benefits by the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Court deems fit.

(2.) The material facts of this case are these : The petitioner joined service in the Government Central Press, Bangalore, as compositor in the year 1941. In 1945 he was promoted as a computer. On 1 July 1950, he was deputed to work in the Central Jail Press, Bangalore, as officiating foreman. He occupied that position as on other duty. On 13 November, 1957, the Mysore Public Service Commission selected the petitioner as foreman. Thereafter, he was relieved from his post as foreman in the Central Jail Press and he joined the Government Central Press on 5 December 1957 as foreman. From these facts, it is clear that the petitioner was working as foreman from 1 July 1950 though his selection as foreman by the Public Service Commission was effected only on 5 December, 1957.

(3.) Two posts of overseers fell vacant on 1 December, 1961. One of them was reserved for being filled up by promotion. The petitioner's case is that he should have been promoted to that post. He alleges that, instead of promoting him, respondent 2 had improperly promoted respondent 3, who was junior to him. It appears that the petitioner made several representations in that regard. But they went unheeded. Even when the petitioner's representations were pending consideration, respondent 2, by his office order No. 727/62-63, dated 29 March 1963, promoted respondent 3 as a supervisor. Respondent 3 joined service as works clerk on 20 April 1955. The public Service Commission selected petitioner as foreman on 13 November 1957. Respondent 3 was selected as foreman by the Public Service Commission on 9 January, 1958. He officiated as a foreman only from 10 September 1956. The petitioner, without doubt, was senior to respondent 3 as foreman. Hence prima facie the petitioner's case should have been considered for promotion before considering the case of respondent 3.