ASANGLA IMSONG Vs. THE STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in this case were appointed initially as District Public Relations Officer on being selected by the Nagaland Public Service Commission and were put on probation. Subsequently, by notification dated 20.08.2008 their services were regularized w.e.f. the date of their entry into the service. Similarly, respondent No. 3 was appointed as Technical Executive under the same department by order dated 25.03.2002 on the basis of the recommendation of the Nagaland Public Service Commission. As on the date of appointment, the rules holding the field was the Nagaland Information and Publicity Service Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Rules were framed in the year 1983 in exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As on the date of framing of the Rules, there was no such post of Technical Executive but subsequently in the year 1986 the post of Technical Executive was created by the Government in exercise of power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, two more cadres of Joint Directors and Additional Directors were created in the year 1989 and 1990 respectively. However, there was no consequent and corresponding amendment in the Rules of the 1983. Be that as it may, the post being the sanctioned ones, they remained part and parcel of the Nagaland Information and Publicity Service. It is to be noted here that respondent No. 3 who was initially appointed as technical executive on 25.03.2002 was subsequently regularized by order dated 12.05.2006 w.e.f. her initial date of entry. The post of Technical Executive was a Class -I at the beginning whereas the posts of District Public Relations Officer were initially part of Class -II Gazetted service. However, subsequently by an amalgamation order issued by the Government on 18.04.2013 the posts of D.P.R.O. were also upgraded and redesignated as Assistant Directors/Public Relations Officers (P.R.O.). The posts thus became Class -I on such upgradation and redesignation. By the same order the posts of Technical Executive were redesignated as Assistant Directors.

(2.) WHILE the present petitioners were working as D.P.R.O. since 2002 and respondent No. 3 was working as Technical Executive since 25.03.2002, the Government by impugned order dated 30.09.2013 allowed respondent No. 3 to officiate to the provisional post of Deputy Director and granted her promotional pay scale. It is this order which has been brought under challenge by the present petitioners. According to the writ petitioners, there was a proposal for officiating promotion of the petitioners to the post of Deputy Director vide letter dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure -7) but the same was not considered and the respondent No. 3 was given officiating promotion overlooking the claim of the petitioners.

(3.) THE official respondents have filed an affidavit -in -opposition. It is mentioned in paragraph 5, 6 and 9 of this affidavit that respondent No. 3 was initially appointed as Inspector of Industries on contract basis under the Directorate of Industries of the Government. Her service was regularized by order dated 05.12.1999 and while serving as an Assistant Engineer (Electronics) on probation, the Government by order dated 20.12.2005 posted her as Technical Executive under the Directorate of Information and Public Relations w.e.f. 22.03.2002. This was done by notification dated 12.05.2006.