ERMELINDA RONGRIN Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admitted position as emerged from the records and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents No. 1 to 4 is that, vide Office Order No. 18 of 2005-06 dated 01.09.2005 issued by the Superintending Engineer, PWD (Rds.) (respondent No. 4) petitioner was appointed as Peon against the vacanct post w.e.f. 08.09.2005 in the scale of pay Rs. 2440-46-2680-EB-50-3080-60-3680/- per month.

(2.) The respondent No. 5 was appointed as Sweeper in the same pay scale vide order No. 20 of 2006-07 dated 16.11.2006 then, vide Office Order No. 19 of 2009-10 dated 30.06.2009 was shifted temporarily to the post of Peon in the same scale of pay.

(3.) Vide another Office Order No. 57 of 2010-11 as against the vacancy of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) as accrued due to the demise of Shri Pulen Sarma, respondent No. 5 was allowed to officiate w.e.f. 09.03.2011 in the scale of pay of Rs. 9200-240-10640-EB-260-12720-300-15720/- per month until further orders. Aggrieved thereof, petitioner filed a representation before the respondent authorities highlighting therein, that she being senior should have been allowed to officiate, further to consider her for promotion to the post of LDA as the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification i.e., Matriculation, the said representation remained pending. However, vide communication No. PW/CE/ESTT/12/2012/30 dated 16.07.2012 addressed to the respondent No. 4 (Superintending Engineer) by the Administrative Officer, PWD (Rds.), Meghalaya, Shillong, it has been conveyed that in the Minutes of the DPC Smti. E. Rongrin (petitioner) though qualified for the post but is inexperienced in handling different works of the Establishment Branch like drafting letters, presenting cases, etc. which an LDA is supposed to do. However, the DPC did not indicate whether the inexperience or incapability of Smti. E. Rongrin has been, recorded or not, in the ACRs and as to whether ACRs have been examined or not by the DPC as the same do not appear to have been placed before the DPC. Further that while considering the case for promotion, the DPC has to examine the instructions contained in letter No. PER.28/88/4 dated 24.03.1988 in which it has been specified that seniority will be an important factor with due regard to merit. The comments were to be submitted. It appears that no action has been taken and the matter has remained pending. Petitioner feeling aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the official respondents has filed the instant petition projecting therein that the petitioner being senior, possesses the requisite qualification and merit deserves to be promoted in accordance with the rules as were in vouge at the time vacancy accrued in the year 2011.