NAWAB AMANULLAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Rule No. 375 of 1990 and Civil Rule No. 744 of 1990, both the Civil Rules raise the common question of law and facts and as such they are taken up for hearing together.

(2.) The prayers made in the Writ Applications are :- (i) To adjudge and declare as illegal, null and void Rule 12 of the Assam Agricultural Engineering Services Rules, 1983 ; and (ii) Direction to Respondents not to give effect to the Rule 12 in the matter of giving promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer of the Agriculture Department of the Government of Assam.

(3.) The brief facts are as follows :- In Civil Rule No. 375 of 1990 the petitioner Nawab Amanullah obtained Diploma in Civil Engineering in the year 1963. He joined as Subordinate Engineer (R & B) Wing on 24.6.63 and he confirmed with effect from 3.3.79. It is also stated that the petitioner was offered an appointment tin Bongaigaon Refinery in the post of Junior Civil Engineer. In January, 1978 there was an advertisement for filling up two posts of Assistant Agriculture (Civil) Engineer with requisite qualification. At that time there was no service Rule for Assam Engineering Service. The petitioner applied for the post and he was appointed on 30th July, 1979. The petitioner served as Assistant Agriculture Engineer in various places and subsequently appointed to the post of Sub-Divisional Agriculture Engineer in the year 1984. In September, 1991 the provisional gradational list was published and the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 13 and earlier to it another gradation list was published wherein the petitioner's name appeared in Serial No. 17 and that of Respondents No. 5,6,7 in Serial Nos. 22,23 and 24. The Respondent Nos. 5,6 and 7 joined as Assistant Agriculture Engineer subsequent to the petitioner. The objections were raised regarding the two gradation lists subsequently. Respondents Nos. 5,6 and 7 were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. The Assam Agricultural Engineering Service Rule, 1983 came into force on 7th of June, 1983. The relevant Rule 12 provides for method of recruitment to Class-I by promotion. The Rule stipulates that for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and also to the cadre of Executive Engineer an Officer must have the minimum qualification of Degree in Civil Engineer in Agriculture or Mechanical. Thus by the said Rule the scope of promotion of the persons in the cadre of the petitioner was blocked. Even though they had the other requisites and qualifications. The Diploma Engineers Services Association represented the matter to the Agricultural Protection Commissioner for modification of Rule 12 so as to give promotional scope to the Diploma holders to the Grade-I post. The Commissioner communicated to the Government that since Diploma holders in other departments like P.W.D., Flood Control are at par that Degree-holders in matters of promotion to the higher level, the same may be examined by the Government with regard to the promotional scope for Diploma-holders in Agriculture Department. As a matter of fact in 1986 the Commissioner made suggestion and course of action to be adopted by the Government for (his purpose. But nothing was done. The action of the respondent in not amending Rule-12 is violative of the right of the petitioners. Rule-12 leads to stagnation. The promotion of Respondents Nos. 5,6 and 7 are also challenged for irregularity and for not complying with the mandatory Rules under Rules 13, 14 and 15 of the aforesaid Rule. It is submitted that hostile discrimination has been meted out to the petitioner.