RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SH . Rajesh Kumar, applicant is aggrieved by the action of the respondents No.1 to 3 whereby the mandatory provisions of Article 14(4) (aO are being circumvented by the respondents No. 1 to 3 in not considering the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Labour Officer and initiating the process to fill up the post of Labour Officer on adhoc basis by considering the case of respondent No.4, Sh.R.P. Rana from general category, though the post, reserved for Scheduled Caste. The facts which have bearing on the decision of the issues raised in this OA briefly stated are as follows: The applicant was appointed as Labour inspector on 30.9.1996 as per Annexure A -1. He belongs to Scheduled Caste category in short (SC). His appointment has also been made against the post reserved for SC. The seniority list annexure A -2 circulated by the respondents reflects the name of the applicant at Sr. No. 14 as it stood on 31.8.2001. From reliable sources the applicant came to know that the respondents No.1 to 3 are likely to promote respondent No.4 Sh. R.P. Rana to the post of Labour Officer from general category without considering the applicant against the roster point reserved for SC category. In not considering the genuine claim of the applicant for promotion, the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, therefore, he has claimed following reliefs: "(1). That the respondents No.1 to 3 may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Labour Officer against the roster point for the category of Scheduled Caste and to grant him all the consequential benefits like seniority etc; (ii) That the respondents No.1 to 3 may be directed not to promote respondent No.4 to the post of Labour Officer from the general category in an illegal and arbitrary manner as the post, in question, has to go to the Schedule caste as per the roster maintained by the respondent department; (iii) That the respondents No.1 to 3 may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to process initiated for filling up the post of Labour Officer by way of promotion from Labour Inspector including the Roster Register maintained by the respondent Department for the kind perusal of this Honble Tribunal."

(2.) THE consistent stand taken by the respondents is that the applicant has no cause of action. They have not issued any order pertaining to the issue of the promotion of Labour officer. Presently there is no grievance of the applicant, therefore, question of redressal does not arise. It is further averred that whenever the post of Labour Officer will be filled up, all the eligible Labour inspectors will be considered for promotion, which is a gazetted post If the applicant is found eligible he will be considered for promotion and every care will be taken that no candidates of SC and ST will be ignored.

(3.) WE have (sic -heard) Mrs. Trisha Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. Chirag B. Singh learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.1 and 2, Sh. D.K. Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3 and Sh. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4.