MOHIT GUPTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against order dated May 26, 1988 issued by the Superintendent, West Bengal Government Press, Alipore, promoting the respondent No. 4, Sri Sasanka Kumar Majumdar to the post of Composing Overseer. The petitioner has contended that such order of promotion was passed unjustly, arbitrarily superseding the petitioner who was senior to the respondent No. 4 in the cadre of Section Holder which is next below the post of Composing Overseer. Immediately after the said order, the petitioner made a demand for justice, but such demand was not acceded to and the writ petition was moved in July, 1988. The petitioner has contended that the petitioner has adequate academic qualifications and technical know-how to get the said post of Composing Overseer. He was originally appointed as Mono - Caster in the fluctuating establishment with effect from August 4, 1952. The petitioner was duly recommended by the Employment Exchange and he qualified in the competitive practical test and eventually was given temporary appointment in the West Bengal Government Press at Alipore and later on was confirmed in such service. During his tenure of service at the West Bengal Government Press, the petitioner completed and passed the Monotype Key Board Operator's Course in English and the Technical Superintendent of the Monotype Corporation Ltd. issued a certificate that the petitioner attended the Monotype School, and completed and passed the Monotype Key Board Operator Course satisfactorily. The petitioner also completed the prescribed 3 years Part-Time Certificate Course of Printing Technology, at the School of Printing Technology Calcutta and passed the final examination held in July, 1959 and was placed in the First Division in Group Monotype. Sometime in July, 1961, the petitioner was appointed in the post of Mono Operator through selection in the West Bengal Government Press at Alipore and was confirmed to the said post of Mono Operator. The petitioner has contended that he also completed three months' full time training course for Worker-Teacher in Alipore dealing with labour problems with special emphasis on trade union at the Worker-Education Centre, Calcutta and he passed the examination held at the end of the said course and was declared to be qualified to function as a Worker-Teacher. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Section Holder in July 1980 and was further promoted to the post of Section Holder on January 1, 1983. The petitioner has contended that as Section Holder he has been working continuously in the said post to the satisfaction of all concerned. One Shri Prasun Kanti Dutta was appointed as Section Holder on January 1, 1985 but he was promoted to the next higher grade viz. to the post of Composing Overseer in February, 1988, thereby superseding the petitioner. The petitioner after coming to know of such promotion given to the said Prasun Kanti Dutta to the post of Composing Overseer, made written representation to the Controller of Printing and Stationary, Government of West Bengal and in his representation he categoricaly pointed out the irregularities and illegalities in giving promotion to the said Sri Prasun Kanti Dutta superseding the legitimate claim of the petitioner. The said Prasun Kanti Dutta, however, retired within a few months after attaining the age of superannuation with effect from May 31, 1988 and the solitary post of Overseer again fell vacant from June 1, 1988. Although the 5 petitioner reasonably expected that the petitioner would be given promotion to the said post, to petitioner's shock and surprise, the respondent no,4, Sri Sasanka Kumar Majumdar was promoted to the said post. The said Sasanka Kumar Majumdar was given promotion to the post of Section Holoder from January 1, 1986 and the petitioner got such promotion from January 1, 1983 to the said post of Section Holder. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner was pretty senior to the said Sasanka Kumar Majumdar in the cadre of Section Holder and the service record of the petitioner does not warrant supersession. Accordingly, being fully qualified and having a seniority over the said Sasanka Kumar Majumdar, the petitioner should have been given promotion to the said post and there was no occasion to supersede the petitioner unjustly.

(2.) In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State Respondents since affirmed by the Superintendent, Government Printing Press, it has been contended that Sri Prasun Kanti Dutta was given promotion to the postof Section Holder (Composing) on 1st January 1985 and ; thereafter he was given promotion to the post of Composing Overseer in the Composing Wing of the Press having power to supervise both the manual and mechanical composition side. The said Sri Dutta worked at the Confidential Sec- : tion and he had supervised more than 100 employees working in different categories, such as, Lino Operators, Mono Operators, Mono Cast Printing Machine Operator, Assistant Printing Machine Operator, Binder and Compositor etc. . and the said Confidential Section is itself a small independent printing press within the West Bengal Government Press at Alipoore. The said Section Holder in the hand composing side is the top non-gazetted post in the Confidential Section and Sri Dutta worked as a Section Holder in the composing wing which includes both manual and mechanical composition and on such consideration the promotion was given to Sri Dutta. It has been contended that it is a long standing practice in the West Bengal Government Press that Section Holder in Composing Wing is preferred for promotion to the post of Composing Overseer. It has been contended that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Composing Overseer, consideration is made only on the basis of seniority as confined to the Section Holder working in the hand composing section. Accordingly, the petitioner although promoted as Section Holder much earlier did not come under the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Composing Overseer. It has been contended the nature of work and responsibility of the Composing Overseer is not the same as those of Section Holder. Accordingly, the petitioner is also not entitled to get same or higher pay given to Sri Sasanka Kumar Majumdar as a Composing Overseer. It has been stated that the Section Holder in the hand composing unit takes decision about any manuscript whether it is of Lino character or of Mono character or whether some or all can be undertaken by manual composition. The said Section Holder of the Composing Section has to take action of job matching for Lino or Mono and the work is thereafter sent to Section Holder, Lino or Section Holder, Mono, as the case may be. The Section Holder (Mono) is required to make liasion only with the Section Holder (Hand Composing), but the Section Holder (Hand Composing) is required to keep liasion both with the Section Holder (Lino) and Section Holder (Mono). Thus on such consideration of the experience of the Section Holder (Hand Composing) unit, Sri Sansanka Kumar Majumdar was given promotion and there had not been any unreasonable supersession of the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Prasun Ranjan Biswas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has very strongly contended that the Government employees in the Alipore Government Press have been given assignments to different departments according to the exigency of the administration. An employee has no hand in the matter of getting assignment of a job in one department or the other. The petitioner has all the requisite qualifications and techincal expertise by undergoing different training and has also a long experience to do the work of Section Holder in ' the Hand Composing Section or as Section Holder in Mono or Lino Section. If for exigency, the petitioner was given assignment in Mono Section and Sri Majumdar was given assignment long thereafter as a Section Holder in the Composing Section, there cannot be any reason to deprive the petitioner by contending that since he was in Mono Section he was not promoted though he is senior. In this connection, Mr. Biswas has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of Roshanlal Tandon v. Union of India reported in (1968-I-LLJ-576) and also another decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of S.M. Pandit v. The State of Gujarat reported in (1972-I-LLJ-127). It has been held by the Supreme Court in the said decisions that whatever may be the source of recruitment, when persons are recruited to a cadre they belong to the same cadre and there cannot be any discrimination or distinction amongst the employees belonging to the same cadre. Mr. Biswas has contended that the petitioner was given promotion to the cadre of Section Holder and the said Sri Majumdar was also given promotion to the cadre of Section Holder, but the petitioner got such promotion : long before Sri Majumdar got such promotion. If both of them belong to same cadre, there cannot be any distinction between the petitioner and Sri Majumdar only on the footing that Sri Majumdar got an assignment in Composing Section but the petitioner was given an assignment in a different section. The post of Composing Overseer is the next superior post and there is only one post of Composing Overseer. Agreat wrong has been done to the petitioner by not considering the case of the petitoner on the contention that as he did not work in the Composing Section as Section Holder, he did not come within the zone of consideration for getting promotion to the post of Composing Overseer. Mr. Biswas has strongly contended that it is not the case of the respondents that the service record of the petitioner is not bright and there are adverse remarks in his service record or he has been found inefficient in discharging his duties as Section Holder. Accordingly, by virtue of his seniority, he should have got proper consideration and there was no reason to leave him out from the zone of consideration for promotion. Mr. Biswas also contended that there is no statutory rule by which the promotional post of Composing Overseer can be filled up only from the post of Section Holder in Composing Wing. Accordingly, the plea of long standing practice should be discarded by this Court and even if such practice had been followed on some occasion, such practice was followed unjustly and illegally.