RAMESHWAR DAYAL Vs. IQBAL AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has a chequered history and the petitioner claims that he has been denied his rightful claim for promotion right from the year 1983 and feels aggrieved by the manner in which his case has been considered.

(2.) PETITIONER was working as an Assistant Surgeon in the Health and Family Welfare Department and in the year 1988 he filed a petition challenging his supersession. The applicant came out with a case in the said petition that he is entitled for promotion on the post of Specialist but ignoring his claim and in total violation to the rules of promotion, adopting a criteria of seniority -cum -merit his claim has been rejected. It was his contention that the criteria for promotion is merit -cum -seniority and not seniority -cum -merit and as the claim has not been properly considered, the petition was filed. After formation of the State Administrative Tribunal this petition was transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the same and therefore, the matter came to this Court in W.P. No.669/1998 and a Division Bench of this Court on 15.10.2003 examined the matter and it was found during the course of hearing of the petition that while the matter was pending before the High Court, petitioner has been promoted on the post of Specialist in the year 2000. However, it was found that a representation highlighting the grievance of the petitioner is pending consideration before the State Government and after taking note of all these, a innocuous order was passed for deciding the representation in accordance with law. For the sake of convenience, we may reproduce herein under the entire order passed by the Division Bench : -

(3.) IT seems that after the aforesaid order was passed, the respondents constituted a review DPC, considered the case of the petitioner and vide Annexure C/4 dated 10.9.2004 rejected his claim by saying that the promotion has to be held in accordance to the criteria of seniority - cum -merit and his claim was rejected. Petitioner, therefore, approached this Court in this contempt proceedings and submits that only to violate the directions of this Court for conducting the promotion under merit -cum - seniority, the impugned action has been taken and therefore, it was said that the same amounts to contempt. When the matter was so pending before this Court, it is seen that on 11.8.2006 Shri K. C. Ghildyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that he has verified the records and has found that the claim of the petitioner seems to have not been properly considered and therefore, this Court gave opportunity to the respondent to reconsider the matter on the basis of merit and suitability. Thereafter, the matter has been considered, a review DPC was held on 9.2.2007 and it is said that after the review DPC considered the claim on merit, it has been rejected. Accordingly, taking note of all these facts on 24.3.2008 respondents were directed to produce the proceedings of DPC. Since then for some reason or the other the matter is kept pending and today during the course of hearing the DPC records of 9.2.2007 are produced before us which goes to show that consideration of the claim in accordance to the requirement of merit -cum -seniority and after allotting marks based on the gradings received for the past five years, petitioner has been allotted 10 marks on account of the fact that he had obtained ''Kha '' grading for all the years right from 1988 upto 1992. It was further found that the last person promoted had obtained 12 marks and therefore, the petitioner was found ineligible for promotion. The Original records of DPC has been produced which goes to show that consideration as indicated herein above has been made. Now the petitioner says that his case has not been considered right from the year 1982 -83 and therefore, a contempt has been committed.