PRASANTA DAS Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the respondent authorities 1-3.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the material facts of the present case are that the petitioner, a matriculate, was initially appointed as a Radio Mechanic and joined in the said post on 30. 10. 1987, in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- p. m. . The Government of Arunachal Pradesh, under provision of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed the Information and Public Relations Technical Establishment Rules, 1973, for recruitment to Class-III, Non-Gazetted Technical Post in the Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Arunachal Pradesh Administration. Under the said Rules, the post of Technician, Class-III, Non-Gazetted, is to be filled-up by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the Radio Mechanics in the said Department having minimum educational qualification of matriculate and having passed the Radio Mechanism Course/radio Engineering Course from recognized Institution plus 10 years experience as Radio Mechanic. The private respondent No. 4, a non-matriculate, entered in service as Projector Operator w. e. f. 28. 07. 1981 in the Department of IPR and Printing, in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- p. m. and he was subsequently appointed on promotion to the post of Technician-cum-Lightman on 25. 11. 1988 in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- p. m. in the Songs and Drama Unit of the said Department. The post of Technician-cum-Lightman is an isolated post and does not belong to the cadre of Technician. A seniority list of Radio Mechanics, as on 19. 02. 1991, was circulated wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 15 and during the period from 1987 to 2004, all the Radio Mechanics placed at serial Nos. 1-14 in the said seniority list were appointed/ promoted to the post of Technician in conformity with the provisions of the aforesaid Rules of 1973. A vacancy in the post of Technician arose during the period 2004-05 and the petitioner was expecting appointment/ promotion to the said post. In the meantime, the Department of IPR was bifurcated and a new Directorate namely the Department of Art and Culture came into existence. By a notification dated 17. 01. 2006, as many as 22 Staff viz. , Producer, Instructor and Staff Artist were transferred from the Department of IPR to the newly created Department of Art and Culture alongwith their posts. By another notification dated 30. 03. 2006, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, transferred the post of Technician-cum-Lightman from the Department of IPR to the Directorate of Art and Culture along with the post in the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- p. m. w. e. f. 01. 04. 2006 to be filled-up by the Directorate of Art and Culture. But before the transfer of the said post to the Directorate of Art and Culture, the respondent No. 4 was transferred from the Songs and Drama Unit to the Department of IPR against the vacant post of Technician in the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- p. m. vide impugned order dated 30. 03. 2006 (Annexure-P/5) by invoking the provision of FR-15 with all consequential benefits. The petitioner came to know about the same sometime in the month of October 2006 and being aggrieved by the said order, he submitted a representation dated 30. 10. 2006, through proper channel, to the respondent Director followed by several reminders in that regard. The petitioner received a reply from the Deputy Director of IPR only on 19. 03. 2007 wherein it was informed that consequent upon the decision of the State Government for transfer of Songs and Drama Unit from the Directorate of IPR and Printing to the Department of Art and Culture, the services of private respondent No. 4 who was working as Technician-cum-lightman in the Songs and Drama Unit was transferred in the identical scale of pay of Technician by invoking the provision of FR-15 to utilize his service in the Directorate of IPR and Printing. In the aforesaid letter dated 19. 03. 2007, it was mentioned that the respondent No. 4 was absorbed against the post of Technician and was brought on promotion. Even after transfer of respondent No. 4 to the Directorate of IPR and Printing, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 in the provisional gradation list of Radio Mechanics as on 09. 05. 2007 circulated by the respondent authorities. Being the seniormost Radio Mechanic, the petitioner has a better claim than respondent No. 4 for being appointed/ promoted to the post of Technician. His case not being considered by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing / setting aside the impugned Memorandum dated 30. 03. 2006 (Annexure-P/5) and letter dated 19. 03. 2007 (Annexure-P/9) and also for issuing a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to transfer respondent No. 4 to the Directorate of Art and Culture and to adjust the said respondent against the erstwhile post of Technician-cum-Lightman.

(3.) MR . R. H. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate contradicts the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Based on the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent authorities 1-3, Mr. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, submits that prior to appointment as Technician-cum-Lightman, the respondent No. 4 was working as Projector Operator in the Directorate of IPR and thereafter, he was appointed in the post of Technician-cum-Lightman carrying identical pay-scale of Radio Mechanic which is Rs. 4500-7000/- p. m. , that too, after duly attending the entry level interview viz. , practical examination followed by viva-voce test. The post of Technician-cum-Lightman, was, no doubt, transferred to the Directorate of Art and Culture alongwith the post and pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- p. m. w. e. f. 01. 04. 2006, but it was, however, retained in the Directorate of IPR and Printing, by invoking provision of FR-15 in the identical scale of pay of Radio Mechanic. This was done to utilize the services of respondent No. 4 in the said Directorate of IPR and Printing. The learned Senior Government Advocate, however, clarifies that the respondent No. 4 was not promoted to the said post of Technician. He was rather adjusted and the typographical error in the communication dated 19. 03. 2007 should be read as 'adjustment' instead of absorption. The learned Senior Government advocate further submits that respondent No. 4 was adjusted in the post of Technician in the interest of public service and should not be read as absorption. Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, further submits that the petitioner has been provided with the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme and has been given the first benefit in the time scale of pay of Rs. 5500-9000/- p. m. which is identical with the scale of pay of Technical Supervisor i. e. the next higher post for both Radio Mechanic as well as Technician whose pay scales are Rs. 4500-7000/- p. m. . He further contends that both are getting the identical pay-scale and the scales of pay of these posts have been clubbed together at Rs. 4500-7000/- p. m. . This being the position, according to Mr. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, the petitioner has not been denied the benefit of financial upgradation as both the post of Radio Mechanic and Technician are one and same with identical pay-scale and as such, the adjustment of respondent No. 4 cannot be treated as promotion to the post of Technician and therefore, the petitioner's position for promotion to the next higher post i. e. Technical Supervisor will not be affected due to such adjustment of respondent No. 4 in the aforesaid post of Technician. It is also submitted that there is no ground for entertaining apprehension by the petitioner that his future promotion to the next higher post i. e. Technical Supervisor, has been blocked and his case would not be considered for promotion to the said post. The petition is devoid of merit and as such, according to Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, the same is liable to be dismissed with cost.