NAVIN CHANDRA JOSHI Vs. REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, writ of certioran has been sought challenging the promotion order of respondents No. 3 and 4, who are alleged to be junior employees to the petitioners. Also, mandamus has been sought to prepare the seniority list of Group -Ill employees of the District Co -operative Bank, Almora.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of clerk -cum -cashier in the District Co -operative Bank between 1979 to 1983. Initially their appointments were made on daily wage basis (prior to respondents No. 3 and 4 who were also engaged in the same manner) and later considering their work and conduct they were given ad hoc appointments to the post and started getting regular pay scale. It is stated in the writ petition that service of the petitioners and respondents No. 3 and 4 were regularized by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 28.6.1993 (copy Annexure -2 to the writ petition) and the names of the petitioners figured at serial Nos. 18 to 24 while that of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, figured at serial Nos. 25 and 27, i.e., below the petitioners. It is alleged that Rule 26 of U.P. Co -operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, provides that the seniority of the employees shall be determined on the basis of date of order of their substantive appointments in the category they are appointed and where two or more persons are appointed on the same date, in the order in which their names appear in the order of appointment. In the year 1995, a tentative seniority list was prepared and circulated by the bank in which the petitioner No. 7 (who was at serial No. 18, in the order by which his services were regularized), was placed at serial No. 32 while Sri Govind Singh Bisht (respondent No. 3, who was placed at serial No. 20 at the time of regularisation), was placed at serial No. 27 in the seniority list, i.e., above the petitioners. The petitioners filed objections against the tentative seniority list. It is alleged by the petitioners in the writ petition that without considering their objections, the respondent No. 2 settled the seniority of Group C employees illegally against which the petitioners made a representation dated 1.12.1995 (copy Annexure -5 to the writ petition). U.P. Co -operative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow, vide its order dated 27.7.1998, informed the bank that in view of the dispute regarding the seniority, the promotions proposed on the basis of the seniority list cannot be approved. Alleging that now respondent No. 2, has promoted 14 persons from Group III to Group II by means of an order passed in January, 2003, and included the names of respondents No. 3 and 4 in the promotion list who were junior to the petitioners. Meanwhile, on 6.2.2003, an advertisement has also been made for 12 vacancies of Group II post for direct recruitment, further affecting the petitioners as against respondents No. 3 and 4. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2, Secretary -cum -General Manager of District Cooperative Bank, Almora, has filed separate counter -affidavit in which also it has been admitted that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis as clerk -cum -cashier by the Bank between 1979 to 1983. Apprehending their disengagement, they filed Writ Petition No. 11538 of 1986, before the Allahabad High Court and in compliance of order dated 26.9.1986, passed by the Allahabad High Court, answering respondent gave ad hoc appointment to the petitioners on 14.10.1986 on the post of clerk -cum -cashier. Fresh joining was required to be given in pursuance of said order and petitioners gave their joining on different dates. Ad hoc appointments of the petitioners and respondents No. 3 and 4 are admitted to have been regularized vide order dated 28.6.1993. It is stated by respondent No. 2 also that on 18.10.1995, a tentative list of Group III employees was circulated and objections were invited. It is stated that only petitioners No. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 filed their objections and after considering the same final seniority list was published on 8.11.1995. The impugned promotions are said to have been made on the basis of said final seniority list.