P C MOHAN RAO Vs. PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SMALL INDUSTRY EXTENSION TRAINING HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging his reversion form the post of Senior Administrative Assistant to the post of Administrative Assistant by the impugned order by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Certiorari and to quash the same and consequently to direct Respondent No.1 to release the increments due and admissible to the petitioner in June, 1987 and June, 1988 and to give him other incidental benefits.

(2.) The petitioner filed his affidavit stating that the National Institute of Small Industry Extension Training, for short 'NISIET', is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and wholely financed by the Central Government and managed by a Governing Counsel under the Chairmanship of Union Minister of State for Industrial Development. It is an instrumentality of the State and hence it falls within the writ jurisdiction of this Court. His earlier Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.18505/1987 was disposed of on 19-1-1988 remitting the matter to Respondent No.1 with a direction to issue fresh notice informing him of the grounds of reversion and accordingly he has been given a notice and he in turn submitted his reply. His case is that he was promoted as Senior Administrative Assistant on the basis of recommendations of the D.P.C. held on 5-6-1986 overlooking the case of Respondent No.2 after assessing her performance. According to him his promotion with effect form 5-6-1986 was a permanent basis in the light of the instructions contained in O.M.21011/2/80, Estt. (C), dated 19-5-1983 of the Department of Personnel and thathe should not have been put on probation as the post of Administrative Assistant and Senior Administrative Assistant fall in the same group 'C' service and the probation should not have been extended. 'It is also his case that the representation of Respondent No.2 was considered in a review D.P.C. on 11-7-1986 and confirmed the proceedings of the earlier D.P.C., but in one more review D.P.C. held on 13-2-1987, the case of Respondent No.2 was recommended for promotion by reverting the petitioner. He assailed the proceedings of review D.P.C. dated 13-2-1987 on the ground that there could not have been review of a review D.P.C. The petitioner then asserted that under the relevant Service Rules i.e., Recruitment and Promotion Rules, applicable to his service - a Graduate with 4 years of service is entitled for promotion from Administrative Assistant to Senior Administrative Assistant and he fulfilled the said qualification even earlier and became entitled for promotion as Senior Administrative Assistant, but whereas Respondent No.2 is not a Graduate and it was necessary for her to complete a minimum service of 10 years as Administrative Assistant for being considered for relaxation of the qualification and promotion as Senior Administrative Assistant and that Respondent No. 2 did not complete 10 years of service by 5-6-1986. He, therefore, urged that the impugned proceedings be quashed and consequential directions may be issued restoring all the benefits to which he is entitled.

(3.) Respondent No.1-NISIET resisted the petition by filing a counter. It is stated that a mistake had occured in the D.P.C. meeting on 5-6-1986 as uncommunicated adverse remarks against Respondent No.2. were taken into account and that though she is senior to the petitioner, she was not recommended for promotion and that the above mistake was corrected in a review D.P.C. meeting held on 13-2-1987. It is asserted that Respondent No.2 is senior to the petitioner among Administrative Assistants and that though she is an under Graduate, she has put in more than 10 years of service and became eligible for promotion as Senior Administrative Assistant. It is also asserted that a Departmental Promotion Committee is entitled to review its earlier proceedings and correct the mistakes if any and that the petitioner being junior to Respondent No.2, is not entitled for promotion as Senior Administrative Assistant and hence the impugned order is valid. All other contentions raised in the writ petition are said to be either incorrect or irrelevant.