ABDUL MAZID Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has prayed for a certiorari quashing the judgment dated 1.12.1994 passed by the Assam Administrative Tribunal dismissing the appeal No. 103 ATA/94 preferred by the petitioner against the orders dated 14.12.1993,9.2.1994 and 28.6.1994 of the State Government rejecting the representation of the petitioner relating to the seniority in the gradation list of Upper Division Assistant.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner was recruited as a Lower Division Assistant in the Assam Secretariat by direct recruitment in the year 1972. One Shri Jagabandhu Sarma was also recruited in the year 1972 by direct recruitment as Lower Division Assistant in the Assam Secretariat. In the merit list of the candidates selected for the post of Lower Division Assistant, while Shri Jagabandhu Sarma was placed at Serial No. 39, petitioner was placed at Serial No. 46..0n 13th and 14th December, 1976, petitioner and Shri Jagabandhu Sarma took departmental examination in Group-A and result of the said examination was published on 13th January, 1977 by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Assam. In the said result, petitioner was placed above Jagabandhu Sarma in merit though both the petitioner and Sri Jagabandhu Sarma were given Grade-II. Thereafter on 15.3.1977 Selection Committee met to consider promotion to the post of Upper Division Assistant from amongst Lower Division Assistant. The said Selection Committee did not recommend the petitioner for promotion to the post of Upper Division Assistant and he was considered unfit for promotion by the Selection Committee. Shri Jagabandhu Sarma, however, was not considered at all by the Selection Committee which met in 1977 on the erroneous impression that he had not passed the Group-A Departmental Examination, and was not, therefore, eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Upper Division Assistant. Subsequently, when Shri Jagabandhu Sarma represented before the authorities, his case was examined and considered by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 12.1.1993 and on the basis of recommendation of the Selection Committee seniority of Shri Jagabandhu Sarma in the cadre of Upper Division Assistant in Assam Secretariat was restored. Petitioner then submitted a representation dated 24.9.1993 before the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Personnel SA(E) Dispur stating therein that seniority of the petitioner also be restored as in the case of Shri Jagabandhu Sarma in the grade of Upper Division Assistant. But by a non-speaking order dated 14.12.1993 petitioner was informed that the Government had regretted its inability to consider his prayer for restoration of seniority. Not satisfied with the said order dated 14.12.1993, petitioner again filed representations dated 20.12.1993 and 25.1.1994 for restoration of seniority as Upper Division Assistant but by order dated 9.2.1994 of the Govt. of Assam, Secretariat Administration (Estt.) Department, petitioner was informed that the Govt. decision communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 24.12.1993 stands. In these circumstances, petitioner filed case No. 37 ATA/94 before the Administrative Tribunal and by order dated 4.4.1994, Tribunal held that the order dated 14.12.1993 and 9.2.1994 of the Govt. relating to restoration of seniority of the petitioner did not indicate:reasons for rejection of the appeal of the petitioner and directed the Secretary S.A. (Estt.) Department to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner with a speaking order. Thereafter, the Secretary S.A. (Estt.) Department passed a speaking order dated 28.6.1994 rejecting the appeal petition of the petitioner. [Being aggrieved petitioner filed appeal No. 103 ATA/94 before the Assam Administrative Tribunal but the said appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Assam Administrative Tribunal by impugned judgment dialed 1.12.1994. On these facts the petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate relief.

(3.) Mr Rajborbhuiya, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the results of the Group-A departmental examination published on 13.1.1977 would show that the petitioner was placed above Shri Jagabandhu Sarma in the merit list and while Shri Jagabandhu Sarma was given (benefit of restoration of seniority in the grade of Upper Division Assistant, petitioner was not given the said benefit of restorationjof seniority. He further contended that the main reason given by the Secretary S.A. (Estt. (Department in the speaking order dated 28.1.1994 for non-restoration of seniority of the petitioner is that the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 15.3.1977 did not recommend petitioner for promotion to the post: of Upper Division Assistant, but the petitioner was not informed as to why he was not recommended for such promotion to the post of Upper Division Assistant. He further submitted that no adverse entries in his ACR were communicated to him and, therefore, there was nothing in the service record of the petitioner on account of which he could be held to be unfit for promotion.