PRAFULLA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a diploma holder in Textile Technology, was appointed under opposite party No. 2 as Weaving Supervisor on 1st August, 1968. Opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5, according to the Petitioner, who are Matriculates having no diploma or certificate in Technical or Handloom Technology, joined in the inferior posts as Weaving Mistry etc. under opposite party No. 2 and were promoted as Non -technical Weaving Supervisors on 15th July, 1958, The post of Assistant Director of Textiles which is the next higher post is being filled up by promotion from amongst the Textile Supervisors according to their seniority. Petitioner claims to be senior to opposite parties 3 to 5 as he is a diploma holder and technically qualified man whereas opposite parties 3 to 5 have no technical qualifications and are mere matriculates. For this purpose he relied on a Circular of the Director of Textiles, Orissa bearing No. 9363(6)/XXXIV(E)/8/77 dated 12th July, 1973 (Annexure -1) issued to all the Assistant Directors of Textiles. The relevant portion of Annexure -1 is quoted below:

(2.) THE first point urged by Mr. Rout. the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the Petitioner is a technically qualified person having diploma in textile technology whereas opposite parties 3 to 5 are mere matriculates, so the Petitioners and opposite parties 3 to 5 cannot be treated as equals. The Resolution in Annexure -4 was issued mainly for the purpose of creating incentives among the non -gazetted officers who have no technical qualification. As per Government Resolution (Annexure -A) passing of departmental test with 5 years' experience is equivalent to holding a diploma or certificate in textile technology with 3 years' experience for consideration for promotion to Class II. Opposite party No. 3 and opposite parties 4 and 5 passed the departmental test in the years 1975 and 1976 respectively and thus they became eligible for promotion to Class II in 1980 and 1981 respectively when they completed 5 years' of experience in the rank of Weaving Supervisors. Petitioner was not required to pass the departmental test and he having joined service as Weaving Supervisor in 1968 became eligible for promotion to Class II in the year 1971 when he completed three years' of experience. Thus, he is much senior to opposite parties 3 to 5. In Annexure -2 which is a gradation list prepared as per the principles laid down in Annexure -I, the Circular issued by the Director of Textiles' the Petitioner has been rightly considered as senior to opposite parties 3 to 5.

(3.) THE next point urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is getting higher scale of pay than opposite parties 3 to 5. So, his rank is higher than opposite parties 3 to 5. He cited S.K. Srivastava v. Union of India and Ors., 1971 (2) S.L.R. 453 in support of his contention. In the above case, it has been held: