CHANDER BHAN BAILDAR Vs. ADMINISTATOR, HUDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Chander Bhan Baildar has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents and he has sought the directions against them by stating that he should be promoted to the post of Road Mate from the date when the services of respondents No. 3 and 4 were regularised as Road Mate and promoted as such in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he belongs to Mirassi Caste which was declared as Backward Class. He was appointed as Baildar on 1.11.1991. Respondent No. 2, however, assigned him the duties of Road Mate. The petitioner was looking after the work of road when the carve channel was being made of the cement slabs in the year 1996. The petitioner completed more than five and half years of service on 27.5.1997. The services of the petitioner were regularised as Baildar in the scale of Rs. 750-940. The petitioner fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the letter dated 27.5.1999. The petitioner has also completed the probation period of one year. The petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 2 stating therein that juniors to him had already been promoted as Road Mate, therefore, he should also be considered for promotion as Road Mate. Respondent No. 4 was appointed in January 1993 as Baildar. He was performing the duties as such from time to time as Chowkidar. Respondent No. 4 was given regular promotion as Mate on 19.3.1997, whereas, the case of the petitioner was cleared only on 27.5.1997. Moreover the initial appointment of the petitioner was made on 1.11.1991 and, therefore, respondent No. 4 is junior to him and, he has been regularised as Road Mate. The petitioner deserves to be considered for promotion being senior and duly qualified. Moreover, the services of the petitioner deserve to be regularised with effect from 1.2.1990.. Respondent No. 2 is resorting to the appointment of pick and choose when respondent No. 3 has been promoted to the post of Road Mate though he was junior to the petitioner in the category of Baildars. In short, the stand of the petitioner is that respondents No. 3 and 4 were junior to him as Baildars and since they have been promoted in the cadre of Road Mate, therefore, the petitioner's claim should also be considered for promotion as Road Mate and he should also be promoted from the date when respondents No. 3 and 4 were regularised as Road Mate.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. There are two written statements on the record : one filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 and the other by respondent No. 3 and the stand of these respondents is elaborated in paras No. 4 and 5 of the written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, which are reproduced as under :-