K. LYNGDOH Vs. KRISMEL NELLANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 271(SH)2007 whereby, the writ petition has been allowed and promotion order dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure -XV to the writ petition) in respect of private respondents has been set aside, and the State respondents have been directed to consider the promotion of the writ petitioner afresh. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused paper on record.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as Peon (Checker) in the Department of Taxes, Govt. of Meghalaya and was posted at Check Gate, Byrnihat. He was promoted in the year 1990 as Lower Division Assistant (for short 'LDA') vide Memorandum dated 16.01.1990. The respondents No. 3 -8 in the writ petition (who are appellants in Writ Appeal No. 21 of 2008) were also LDAs with the Department of Taxation of the State. The writ petitioner had pleaded that the said respondents though senior as LDAs in the writ petition did not accept the job of Upper Division Assistant (for short 'UDA') and as such, the writ petitioner was promoted (in officiation) vide order dated 30.09.1994 as UDA. On its basis, the writ petitioner has claimed himself to be senior to respondents No. 3 -8 in the writ petition. The writ petitioner has relied upon Rule 7(4) of the Draft Rules of 1991, and pleaded that as against the respondents No. 3 -8 in the writ petition, the writ petitioner should have been promoted to the post of Inspector of Taxes. It is admitted by the writ petitioner in Para -9 of the writ petition that in the Amalgamated Gradation List, he was shown junior to the private respondents No. 3 -8. He made a representation as pleaded in the writ petition but his representation dated 31.08.2000 was not accepted and he was communicated about the same vide letter dated 27.10.2000. Claiming that the writ petitioner was more qualified, the promotion of respondents No. 3 -8 in the writ petition was challenged by the writ petitioner.

(3.) APART from above, we are of the considered view that the Draft Rules relied upon by the writ petitioner could not have been invoked before the same was approved by the Government and notified by the competent authority. Therefore, in our opinion, learned Single Judge erred in law in accepting the plea of the writ petitioner that the promotion of the writ petitioner should have been made on the basis of Rule 7(4) of the Draft Rules of 1991.