SHANKAR EAMANRAO BHOYAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Senior Care taker by the Divisional Social Welfare Office some times in 1982. According to him he had passed S. S. C. in 1976 before joining the service. He had also taken some training in Social Service from Mahatma Gandhi Institute, Yerwada Pune. That training is also imparted by the Social Welfare Department. According to him appointment to the post of Probation Officer is to be made by nomination and promotion in the ratio of 50:50. However, in violation of the Rules the respondent repeatedly invited applications for the post of Probation Officer by giving advertisement and thus ignored the rights of the petitioner, who is duly qualified for the post of Probation officer. With this contention he filed complaint ulp No.762 of 1991 before the Industrial Court Nagpur contending that the respondents had indulged in an unfair labour practice under M. R. T. U. and p. U. L. P. Act. He also sought a direction to the respondents to promote and appoint the petitioner as a Probation Officer. The claim of the petitioner was denied by respondents. According to them he does not possess requisite qualification and experience. The recruitment and appointment to the post of probation officer is strictly made in accordance with rules and there is no rule for giving promotion to a person from Senior Care Taker cadre to the post of Probation officer. It is contended that they never indulged in an unfair labour practice.

(2.) After hearing the evidence led by both the parties, the Industrial Court dismissed the complaint. Hence this petition.

(3.) On perusal of the impugned order and the evidence on record it appears that the petitioner had passed S. S. C. examination in 1976. He had taken training of 3 months from Mahatma Gandhi Institute at Yerwada Pune. He joined the service in Social Welfare Department as Senior Care Taker whose responsibility and duty is to take care of the children admitted in the Remand Home or Children home. Evidence of Ravindra Patil Deputy Commissioner Establishment examined as witness on behalf of the respondents reveals that Recruitment Rules were framed in the year 1929. Till 1980 the post of Probation officer was filled in by promotion but since 1980 this post is being filled in by nomination. According to him promotional cadre may be from cadre of Peon-Junior Care Taker-Senior care Taker to Junior Clerk and the post of Peon, falls in Class IV cadre while junior Care Taker falls in Class III cadre. According to his evidence, Senior Care taker may be promoted as Junior Clerk, Junior Clerk may be promoted as Senior clerk, Senior Clerk may be promoted as Head Clerk and Head Clerk may be promoted as Office Superintendent. Some instances were brought on record to show that a person holding the post of Deputy Superintendent was promoted as probation Officer. Mr. S. V. Gudadhe , Mr. V. P. Kulkarni, Mr. R. V. Kulkarni and Mr. Dastane were appointed as Junior Supervisor and then they were promoted as Deputy Superintendent and then as Probation officer. The petitioner did not produce any Rules to show that the Senior Care Taker could be promoted as Probation officer. At page 26 there is a copy of recruitment Rules in respect of probation officer under Juvenile Branch. As per this, appointment of Probation officer shall be made by the Chief Inspector Certified Schools either by nomination or by promotion and therein the qualifications are given for the purpose of selection for the said post by nomination. These Rules are totally silent as to what would be the channel of promotion leading to the post of probation Officer.