TANGAM TAMUT Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred for issue of a writ of Mandamus/Certiorari for quashing the promotion order of the: private respondent Nos. 8 to 12 and the gradation list of Group 'B' Officers of the Agricultural Department, Arunachal Pradesh, along with other consequential reliefs.

(2.) Petitioners' case in brief is that they were duly selected and appointed as Agriculture Inspector, Horticulture Inspector, Plant Protection Inspector(Grade 'C') vide appointment orders passed on 1.2.79, 24.4.80, 28.10.83 and 30.7.84. The respondent authority also vide notification dated 30.5.89(Annexure-2) upgraded the status of Agriculture Inspector/Extension Officer/ Agricultuic Farm Manager/Technical Assistant/Horticulture Inspector and Plant Protection Inspector having degree in Agriculture from Group 'C' to Group 'B'(Gazetted status). The respondent authority were promoting the Inspectors in various branches mentioned above to the next higher grade as per gradation list prepared and published on 23.12.88. and corrected vide corrigendum dated 21.7.90. The practice of promotion on the basis of seniority as per gradation list was given a go-bye vice the impugned order dated 2.7.96 whereby the respondents authority promoted some officers arbitrarily in total disregard to the seniority list and the service rules.

(3.) On 11th October, 1989 the State Government issued an order to the effect that pending formal and complete separation of the establishment of the department of Agriculture and Horticulture, the Gazetted Officer of both the departments will continue to be in a common cadre and their service records will be maintained in the department of Agriculture. Thereafter, the department of Agriculture and Horticulture were bifurcated and the officers of the combined gradation list were asked to exercise their option by a W.T. message issued on 8.2.91. All the petitioners exercised their option for the department of Horticulture. In a meeting held in the office of the Chief Secretary on 19.3.92, it was decided that combined inter-se-seniority as approved would continue. It was further decided that the officers who have already opted for either of the department and working in that department would continue to serve in that department. It was further decided that if any of such officers opt for change of department, such option will be accepted subject to the availability of the vacancy and on condition that he would be placed as juniormost in the department. It is alleged that though the petitioners exercised their option for Horticulture Department, they were not placed under the Horticulture Department. The respondent authorities have made transfer and placement to Horticulture Department by pick and choose policy placing the junior officers of the combined cadre to Horticulture Department and by now they are enjoying higher status and rank than the petitioners who are senior to them. The junior officers placed in the Horticulture department have also been promoted to the next higher grade. The Director of Agriculture brought this anomalies to the notice of the Government vide letters dated 13.5.93 and 20.5.93. The petitioners during the period between 1992 and 1995 have been promoted to Group-'B' senior (Category-4) technical from Group-'B' junior post, but their promotion to Group- 'A'(Category 3) has become long due. The petitioners individually submitted prepresentation on 8.3.96 in protest against the illegal procedure of promotion ignoring legitimate claim of the petitioners. Thereafter on 8.3.96, the Development Commissioner circulated provisional gradation list of Group- 'B'(senior) officers only of the Agriculture Department with a direction to the concerned officers to communicate their acceptance of the list within 30 days. All the petitioners objected to the said list which was prepared in violation of the combined seniority list of both the departments. But, nothing has been done by the respondents to correct the irregularity committed. That apart, the petitioners also deny the formal separation of the departments of Agriculture and Horticulture and challenged the method and procedure of placement and subsequent promotion of junior officers which according to them are in violation of the provision of Rules 8 and 9 of the Arunachal Pradesh Agriculture/Horticulture Service Rules. 1989. According to them, the promotion to the category III (Group-A post) ought to have been made from the officers of the category- IV(Group-'B'). Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the promotion orders of private respondents (Annexure-9) and the provisional gradation list (Annexure-11A).