JOAQUIN I M DIAS Vs. R S RAVONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the services as a clerk on December 18, 1983 with Mormugoa Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the third respondent") whose Chairman is the second respondent. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Cashier an July 28, 1976. From August 1978 he was appointed as Cashier on ad hoc basis and then promoted to the said post on regular basis. Ultimately, by an order, dated April 28, 1986 he was promoted to the post of chief Cashier

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner in the hierarchy of the services in the accounts department of third respondent, Assistant Cashier-Ill (in the grade of Rs. 800-1014-EB-1484) in the post from which the next promotional post is that of Cashier/additional Cashier (in the grade of rs. 880-982-EB-1542) from which post a promotion to the post of Chief cashier could be had (in the grade of Rs. 965-1229-EB-1679 ). And the last promotional post is that of Assistant Account Officer (cash) in the grade of Rs. 980-1930 from the post of Chief Cashier. In other words, the petitioner contended that Assistant Accounts Officer (cash) could be promoted from the post of Chief Cashier alone.

(3.) HOWEVER, his grievance is that the original recruitment rules (Exh. 'c') in the accounts department of the third respondent were amended on march 17, 1986 (Exh. 'd') whereby the promotion to the post of Assistant accounts Officer (cash) was made available from the posts of Chief Cashier /cashier/additional Cashier which would mean that unequals are treated as equals and that is how the amended rules of March 17, 1986 are bad-in-law, being arbitrary and discriminatory offending the provisions of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner further felt aggrieved that instead of following the original recruitment rules whereby if promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer (cash) was not possible the said post could have been filled up by transfer or deputation or direct recruitment, the third respondent, with an ulterior motive to favour the first respondent, amended the recruitment rules which would benefit the first respondent alone as he was the only graduate in the department and that is so clear as, according to the petitioner, the post of Assistant Accounts officer (cash) which was lying vacant from April 1, 1985 was not filled up and was filled up later by promoting the first respondent after amending the original recruitment rules. His further grievance is that by this method of favouritism the first respondent who was junior to him is now made his superior officer. He accordingly prayed to quash and set aside the amended recruitment rules (Exh. 'd') to the extent that they provided promotion by clubbing the posts of Cashier and Additional Cashier with that of Chief cashier and the promotion of the first respondent.