KAMLESH JAISWAL Vs. GENERAL MANAGER CENTTAUR HOTEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present Writ petition is that Respondents 1 to 3 be directed to restore/protect the seniority of the Petitioner for the post of Assistant Housekeeper. (The facts are neither complex nor have raised any contentious issues. The Petitioner, joined the service of the Centaur Hotel on 7/8/1982: Respondent No. -4 jointed on 17/8/1982: and Respondent No. 5 jointed on 17/8/1982: and Respondent No.5 joined on 18/10/1982. The Petitioner was confirmed on 7/8/1983, Respondent No. 5 on 1/11/1983 and Respondent No. 4 on 1/3/1984. It is, significant that althought Respondent No. 5 had joined service after Respondent No. 4 his confirmation preceded that of Respondent No. 4. The Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 5 were promoted as Senior Supervisors on the same day, i.e. 1/2/1984 and were also confirmed together exactly one year latter. Respondent No. 4, however, was promoted as a Senior Supervisor almost two years later, i.e. on 16/7/1986 and was confirmed in this post on 1/7/1987 i.e. almost two and a half years subsequent to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5.

(2.) It appears that two vacancies to the post of Assistant Housekeeper had falled vacant in February, 1999, one in the General category and other in the Reserved category for SC/ST candidates. In respect of the General category, a D.P.C. was constituted. Respondent No. 5 was found most suitable in the said D.P.C. and was appointed, not on the strength of his being an SC/ST candidate but on merits, as the Assistant Housekeeper. The Petitioner, accordingly, was passed over as only on post was available in the general category. Respondent No. 4 was appointed as the SC/ST category. It is not certain whether she was appointed to this post as bein the seniormost SC/ST candidate after excluding Respondent No. 5 but this appeal to be the position since she was junior to him as a Senior Supervisor. Alternative since these two Respondents were in the same category, it is quite possible the Respondent No. 5 would not become senior to Respondent No. 4 by virtue of having been promoted as well as confirmed as a Senior Supervisor over two year before Respondent No.4. If this was not taken into consideration the corollary is the in treating Respondent No. 4 as the senior most in the SC/ST category, Respondents 1 to 3 had taken into account the fact that her joining preceded that Respondent No. 5. If this be so, the same policy and yardstick must be employee even for the Petitioner. In this case, she would become the seniormost Housekeeper In the view that I have taken in the present petition, this question however does call for a definite answer. This is for the reason that Respondent No. 5. having competed successfully in the DPC would be senior to the Petitioner. The competition therefore, is restricted between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4.

(3.) It was contended by learned Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 that at preserve there are no further vacancies for the post of Housekeeper and, therefore,the petition was premature and precipitate. On a query as to whether a seniority list been maintained and whether in this list Respondent No. 4 was shown senior to Petitioner for the reason that former was appointed as an Assistant Housekeeper February 1990 where JS the latter had been appointed in November 1990, answer was in the affirmative. In these circumstances, in my view the writ petition would not be premature or precipitate since as and when the vacancies would occur. Respondent No. 4 would be shown senior to the Petitioner in the Level of Assistant Housekeeper.