AK JAIN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondent authorities whereby ignoring the seniority of the petitioner, respondents No. 3 to 5 have been granted promotion.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Press Operator on 13/6/1980 with the respondent department on the basic of 246-6-270-10-350 at the office of Dy. Director, Agriculture Bilaspur vide Annexure P/1. Respondent No.3 Ravindra Kumar Mun, respondent No.4 Suresh Kumar Sikya and respondent No.5 AK Bose were appointed as Press Photographer on the basic of 220-5-240-6-270-10-300 EB-10-350-211-350 on 26/7/1993, 16/7/1993 and 5/5/1986 respectively. Copy of the seniority list as on 1/4/2010 of Press Operator and Photographer is filed as Annexure P/2. On 29/12/2010 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Agriculture Development Officer and in this regard, amended order was issued on 14/1/2011 vide Annexure P/3. Respondents No.3 to 5 were promoted on 1/2/2008 to the post of Agriculture Development Officer vide Annexure P/4. In the seniority list as on 1/4/2010 of Agriculture Development Officers, the names of respondents No. 3 to 5 appear at S.No.296, 295 and 294 whereas the name of the petitioner is not mentioned therein. Further, in the seniority list as on 1/4/2011 of the Agriculture Development Officers, names of respondents No. 3 to 5 find place at S.No.191, 190 and 189 whereas the petitioner's name appear at S.No.592 vide Annexure P/7 and P/8.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner was appointed as Press Operator on 13/6/1980 on the basic of 246-6-270-10-350 at the office of Dy. Director, Agriculture Bilaspur whereas respondents No.3 to 5 were appointed as Press Photographer on the basic of 220-5-240-6-270-10-300 EB-10-350-211-350 on 26/7/1993, 16/7/1993 and 5/5/1986 respectively. Thus, the posts of Compositor and Photographer were lower posts as compared to the post of Press Operator on which the petitioner was appointed and their pay scale was also lower than the petitioner's pay scale. However, the respondent authorities ignoring the said fact and seniority of the petitioner, placed respondents No. 3 to 5 above the petitioner in the gradation list as on 1/4/2011 of Agriculture Development Officer. Though the petitioner submitted several representations to the respondents for correction of the seniority/gradation list but no heed was paid to it. The action of the respondent authorities is not only illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory in nature but also violative of principle of natural justice and Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has been superseded by his juniors respondents No. 3 to 5 without there being any fault on his part, due to arbitrary and illegal action of the respondent authorities. Further, during pendency of this petition, respondents No. 3 to 5 have been granted promotion to the post of Senior Agriculture Development Officer on 19/2/2014 (Annexure P/9), which is per se illegal and as such, it is liable to be set aside. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner be granted the relief claimed. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1990) 2 SCC 715 and the order dtd. 4/12/2015 of this Court in WPS No.5946 of 2011 in the matter of Chandu Ram Jatwar Vs. State of CG and others.