INAM ALI Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE promotion was given to respondent No.3 to the post of District Social Welfare Officer, similar promotion was not given to the petitioner. Petitioner contends that the statutory rule, in relation to such promotion, is the rule of seniority subject to not found unfit. Petitioner contends that while he was appointed on 20th August, 1998 and in pursuance therewith he joined on 30th October 1998, respondent No.3 was regularized only on 15th December, 1998. It was contended that in such circumstances, while the petitioner obtained substantive appointment on 30th October, 1998, respondent No.3 obtained substantive appointment on 15th December, 1998 and, accordingly, petitioner was senior to respondent No.3. It is the contention of the petitioner that petitioner, being senior to respondent No.3, case of respondent No.3 could not be considered without considering the case of the petitioner.

(2.) WITH the case as above, petitioner approached the Public Services Tribunal. The Tribunal found, as a fact, that respondent No.3 was working as a Superintendent in a school, which school was upgraded, whereupon on 27th June, 1990, respondent No.3 was asked to discharge the duties of Principal of the upgraded school in officiating capacity. The Tribunal found that since 5th July, 1990 respondent No.3 discharged the duties and functions of the Principal of the said upgraded school in officiating capacity. The Tribunal found that the status of the said upgraded school, and the school where the petitioner was appointed, were equal. The Tribunal found that on 15th December, 1998, respondent No.3 was regularized with effect from 5th July, 1990 pursuant to an order passed by the Allahabad High Court. The Tribunal, therefore, held that respondent No.3, having been appointed on the post of Principal on 5th July, 1990, she was senior to the petitioner and, accordingly, while considering the case of promotion of respondent No.3, the case of the petitioner was not required to be considered. The same has also not caused any infraction of any statute or any right of the petitioner. The Tribunal, thus, concluded the matter and dismissed the application of the petitioner.