ANT RAM Vs. ADMINISTRATOR CITY BOARD GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. The three petitioners filed this writ petition under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India against four respondents. Respondent No. 1 was the Administrator City Board, Ghaziabad. The other three respondents were Jagan Lal, Jagdish Prasad and Harishankar Sharma, all posted as Tax Inspectors under the City Board, Ghaziabad. The petitioners prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No. 1 to promote the three petitioners to the post of Tax Inspectors with effect from the dates they were entitled to be promoted. A further prayer was made for a writ of mandamus for directing respondent No. 1 not to allow respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 to work as Tkx Inspectors.

(2.) IT was the case of the petitioners that they were working as bill collectors and tah-bazari moharrir under the City Board, Ghaziabad. The board had published a seniority list on 31-10-80 under which the petitioners were shown as senior to respon dents No. 2 to 4 bearing the case of Jagan Lal who was shown senior to petitioner No. 3 (Bhagirath Singh ). A copy of the seniority list was annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. This seniority list was acted upon and was also confirmed by the High Court in connection with writ petition No. 2137 of 1984 decided on 6-3-84. IT was al leged that respondent No. 2 (Jagan Lal) belonged to revenue cadre and was posted as an Amin but respondents No. 3 and 4 (Jagdish Prasad and Han Shanker Sharma) belonged to ministerial cadre and were posted as store-keeper and L. M. C. clerk respectively. The three petitioners, how ever, belonged to revenue cadre. The post of L. M. C. clerk was subsequently designated as L. T. C. Inspector. The dispute arose on account of alleged arbitrary action of the Administrator, City Board, Ghaziabad, who promoted unqualified juniors to work as Tax Inspectors ignoring the case of the petitioners. Reference was made to a Government Order dated 10-4-50 (An nexure No. 2 ). The petitioners claimed that they were Intermediate passed and under the Government Order were qualified to be promoted as Tax Inspectors while respon dents No. 2,3 and 4 were only High School passed and were not eligible for promotion as Tax Inspector.

(3.) A counter affidavit was filed on be half of Jagan Lal (respondent No. 2 ). He made out a case that petitioners No. 1 and 3 (Ant Ram and Bhagirath) were appointed as bill collectors on 3-3-71 and 12-8-72 respectively. The other petitioner Ram Pal was appointed on 7-7-79 as tahbazari moharnr. The seniority list relied upon by the petitioners was illegal and void. An of ficer- in-charge of the City Board could ex ercise the powers delegated to him by the Administrator. He was never delegated with the power to determine seniority of the employees or to prepare the seniority list. The concerned seniority list was not prepared with the consent of the ad ministrator. Neither any objection nor any suggestion was ever invited. It was never placed in the notice board was never circu lated in the office. Moreover there was error apparent on the face of it. The date of ap pointment was the basis of seniority. This deponent (Jagan Lal) was appointed as Amin vide letter No. 7369 and had joined on 7-7- 69 and he should have been placed above the petitioners according to this date of appointment, in the seniority list. How ever his date of joining of the service was wrongly mentioned. A copy of his appoint ment letter was attached to the counter-af fidavit. The averment in the writ petition that the seniority list was accepted in writ petititon No. 2137 of 1984 by the High Court was not accepted. The deponent as serted that he was not a party to the said writ petition and the decision could not be bind ing on him. The Administrator never accorded sanction to this seniority list. He asserted that not only himself but Jagdish Prasad and Hari Shankar Sharma also belonged to revenue cadre.