DHANPAL SINGH Vs. I.I.T. ROORKEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

(2.) Factual matrix of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Horticulture Overseer in the year 1995 in the University of Roorkee, District Haridwar. After creation of State of Uttarakhand, the University of Roorkee was transformed in I.I.T. Roorkee and thereafter the petitioner became the employee of I.I.T., Roorkee, Haridwar. On conversion of the erstwhile University of Roorkee into IIT Roorkee, the process of mapping in respect of academic and non-academic staff was carried out. Petitioner's post was also mapped and was converted into Lab Assistant. The basic qualification for the post of Horticulture Overseer is B.Sc. (Agriculture)or Diploma in Horticulture with five years experience and the post of Horticulture Overseer is Class II post equivalent to the post of Junior Engineer. The petitioner contended that the petitioner's post has been wrongly mapped his post to Lab Assistant. Thus, he made representation on 07.11.2008 stating therein that the original post of the petitioner is Overseer (Horticulture) which is equivalent to Junior Engineer (Horticulture) and the qualifications for the post of Junior Engineer (Horticulture) as well as Overseer (Horticulture) are similar. It is further stated that one post of Horticulture (Executive Engineer) was filled up by the department on adhoc basis. The respondent no.2 rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 08.06.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed a detailed representation and requested that the status of the petitioner should be maintained in accordance with law. Respondent no.2 again dismissed the said representation observing that the name of the post of the petitioner has been changed to Lab Assistant (Horticulture). The petitioner again filed a representation dated 05.08.2020 with regard to the mapping of the post of the petitioner and requested that matter be sent to Grievance Redressal Committee of I.I.T., Roorkee. The respondent no.2 informed the petitioner that the said committee has rejected the representation of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.