GHANSHYAM GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Statistical Assistant in the Department of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, in the year 1957. He was later on appointed as Statistical Assistant in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Himachal Pradesh, in the year 1960 and was confirmed as such in May, 1966. By Office Order, dated 18th November, 1966 (copy Annexure P. 1), lie was promoted to officiate as District Statistical Officer, Kangra District, with headquarters at Dharamsala in the scale of Rs. 250 -25 -600 purely as a temporary measure on ad hoc basis. The petitioner is alleged to have joined this post {of District Statistical Officer on 29th November, 1966 in compliance to the order, dated 18th November, 1966. The petitioner continued to work on this post and by a notification, dated 13th December, 1971, (copy Annexure P 4) the Governor of Himachal Pradesh on the recommendation of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, promoted the petitioner to the post of District Statistical Officer (who was previously working on ad hoc basis) against the resultant vacancy caused by deputation selection of certain officers, it was further made clear by the said notification, that the petitioner will stand reverted to his original post in the event of reversion of the incumbents of these posts to their parent department and the reversion will be on the basis of juniority. A final seniority list of gazetted officers as on 1st June, 1972 was also issued on 8th June, 1972 (vide copy Annexure P". 7). The petitioner feeling aggrieved from the seniority list and the order of his promotion (as District Statistical Officer) vide notification, dated 13th December, 1971 instead of from the date of his ad hoc appointment, i. e. 29th November, 1966 filed a representation on 22nd November, 1972 (copy Annexure P. 14) but the same was rejected vide order, dated 6th March, 1973 (copy Annexure P. 16).

(2.) In this writ petition the petitioner has alleged that at the time of his promotion to the post of District Statistical Officer vide order, dated 18th November, 1966, the statutory rules, known as "Recruitment rules for the posts of (i) Statistician (ii) Research Officer and (iii) District Statistical Officers in the Department of Economics and Statistics, Himachal Pradesh Government9 had been enforced with effect from 9th March, 1965 vide notification, dated 13th August, 1965 (copy Annexure P. 2). According to the rules of 1965, the petitioner was qualified to hold the post of District Statistical Officer, and according to the petitioner he had been working in this post as District Statistical Officer to the entire satisfaction of the department. The actual words used in the writ petition are contained in para 4, which are reproduced below : "4. That the petitioner respectfully avers that the words "purely as a temporary measure on ad hoc basis" as used in the Office Order (Annexure P -l) were prima facie redundant for the reasons that the aforesaid statutory Recruitment Rules were in force at the relevant time, a Departmental Promotion Committee was in existence, the post was likely to continue indefinitely, the vacancy against the post had occurred in a proper routine, the filling of the post by promotion was expedient and exigent in public interest, the petitioner was due and eligible for promotion/appointment under the Rules and therefore he was promoted/appointed accordingly." It is further alleged by the petitioner that in any case his case was considered for regular promotion to the post of District Statistical Officer in 1971 (i. e. after a lapse of about 5 years) and as such he should have been regularised in the post of District Statistical Officer from ?29th November, 1966. It is alleged that on 29th June, 1971, he approached the department with an application that he be regularised on the post from 29th November, 1966, but to his utter surprise a notification was issued on 13th December, 1971 and he was not regularised from 29th November, 1966. It is alleged that once having been promoted to the post of District Statistical Officer in November, 1966, there was no occasion to promote/appoint him to the said post on 13th December, 1971 and that the said order was issued without issuing any show cause and the same is arbitrary and contrary to law and interest of justice. According to the allegations of the petitioner he should only have been regularised to his post from 29th November, 1966.

(3.) It is further alleged by the petitioner that the seniority list was issued and that instead of giving the petitioner his seniority at serial No. 13 he was shown at serial No. 16 in the said seniority list. The petitioner alleges that respondent No. 2 (Shri J. C. Kalra), respondent No. 3 (Shri R. L. Gupta) and respondent No. 4 (Shri V. K. Malhotra) are shown at serial Nos. 7, 9 and 11 respectively, but their appointment are not in accordance with statutory rules prevailing at the relevant time. On these allegations he claimed his seniority above the aforesaid three respondents also. The petitioner further alleges that in view of the aforementioned circumstances he should have been shown at serial No. 10 in the seniority list and not at No. 16.