SAKTIPADA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the memo dated 17.5.88 under which the tentative seniority list for Extension Officers (Social)/Assistant Inspectors of Social Education/Social Education Officers/Mukhya Sevikas has been published by the Directorate of Social Welfare in Social Education, Government of Tripura, and for a mandamus on the respondents to prepare a fresh combined seniority list for the aforesaid employees and the Superintendents of home and Supervisors (RFLP & ICDS),

(2.) The facts as stated in the Writ Petition briefly are that the petitioner was appointed as a Social Education Worker under the Government of Tripura on 1.3.1971 and was thereafter appointed on promotion to the post of Supervisor, Rural Functional Literacy Project (RFLP) on 3.12.79. By an extraordinary gazette dated 8th Dec'88 a manual of broad job outlines for field level supervisory staff under the Social Education Programme was published by the Government of Tripura in the Education Department. In the said manual, it was stated that all the supervisory posts under the Social Education Programme with different nomenclature such as Social Education Organiser, Mukhya Sevika, Extension Officer (Social Education), Assistant Inspector of Social Education and Supervisor (except ICDS Scheme) carry identical scales of pay and their jobs were classified under different heads such as supervision, administrative and general activities. All the aforesaid different categories of supervisor staff namely Extension Officer (Social), Assistant Inspector of Social Education, Social Education Organiser, Mukhya Sevika, Supervisory (RFLP & ICDS) and Superintendent of Home constitute feeder posts for promotion to the post of Inspector of Social Welfare and Education as well as Assistant Project Officer (RFLP), The case of the petitioner is that since Extension Officer (Social), Assistant Inspector of Social Education, Social Education Organiser, Mukhya Sevika, Supervisors (RFLP &ICDS) and Superintendent of Home belong to the broad category of supervisory staff working in the Social Education Programme and have the same duties and responsibilities as well as pay scale and are to be considered for promotion to the posts of Inspector of Social Education and Project Officer (RFLP), a common seniority list has to be prepared by the respondents for all persons holding all these post of Supervisory staff. The petitioner has further stated in the Writ Petition that as matter of fact by a memo dated 7.5.88 of the Directorate of Social Welfare and Social Education, Government of Tripura (Annexure- 3 to the Civil Rule) a combined seniority list for the posts of Extension Officers (Social)/ Assistant Inspector of Social Education SEO,MS/Supervisor (ICDS & RFLP) and Superintendent of Home as on 31.10.87 was prepared tentatively and circulated amongst the employees in which the petitioner's name was shown as SI.51, but soon thereafter by a memo dated 17.5,88 another tentative seniority list for the post of Extension Officers (Social)/ Assistant Inspector of Social Education/SEO/ MS only was prepared and circulated amongst the employes from which Supervisors (ICDS & RFLP) including the petitioner were excluded. The petitioner has challenged the said Memo dated 17,5.88 (Annexure-4) contending that such exclusion of the petitioner and other Supervisors (ICDS & RFLP) is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as the petitioner and other Supervisors would not be duly considered for promotion to the higher posts of Inspector of Social Welfare Education and Assistant Project Officers (RFLP).

(3.) An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents slating that the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Supervisor (RFLP) but was appointed to the said post in the year 1979 pursuant to an advertisement inviting applications from graduates for the post under a centrally sponsored scheme in the daily newspaper and subsequent selection made for appointments to the said post. The respondents have further contended in their affidavit-in-opposition on the basis the recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution that the posts of Assistant Inspector of Social Education, Extension Officer, Superintendents, Social Education Organiser/Mukhya Sevika and Supervisor are different from each other carrying different scales of pay. It has however been admitted in the affidavit-in-opposition that in the year 1983 the aforesaid posts carried identical scales of pay and that a common job outline manual for all the aforesaid field level Supervisor staff under the Social Education Programme in Tripura was published in the extra-ordinary issue of the Tripura Gazette dated 8th Dec'83. But this did not make all these posts identical and hence separate seniority lists were prepared and circulated for all these posts from time to time and a copy of the seperate seniority list of Supervisors (RFLP) as on 12.12.83 has been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition. The respondents have further stated in the affidavit- in-opposition that for the first time a combined seniority list for the posts of Extension Officer (Social/Assistant Inspector of Social Education/SEO/MS/Supervisor (ICDS & RFLP)/ Superintendent of Home as on 31.10.87 was prepared by the respondent No.2, but the same was not circulated to the employees concerned through their Heads of Office and it was not clear as to how the petitioner received the copy of the seniority list under the memo dated 7.5.88 when it was not circulated to the employees. It has been clarified in the affidavit -in-opposition that the Social Welfare and Social Education Organisation under the Government of Tripura has a temporary and permanent establishment. While the posts of Assistant Inspector of Social Education, Extension Officer. SEO and MS was borne in the permanent establishment, the posts of Supervisors (ICDS & RFLP) belong to the temporary establishment. For the permanent establishment a common seniority list of persons who are declared or likely to be declared as permanent in different Supervisors posts were published tentatively and circulated by the impugned memo dated 17.5.88 to the employees concerned to raise objection and furnish other information which were required for administrative reasons. The Supervisors (ICDS & RFLP) who had been appointed under the Centrally sponsored scheme could not be treated as part of the permanent establishment until the posts held by them were converted into permanent posts by a policy decision of the State Government. It has however been, clarified in the affidavit- in-opposition that the common seniority list circulated under the impugned memo dated 17.5.88 has no relationship with the promotion and at the time of promotion, the seniority lists of different categories of supervisory staff published separately of the feeder posts shall be taken into account and there would be no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution while nuking the promotion to the higher posts.