NANI GOPAI MAJI Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ application the petitioner have prayed for quashing the order dated 15.6.99 issued by the respondent by which respondent no.5 has been promoted to the post of Senior Programmer and also for quashing the order dated 9.1.92 by which the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, C.V. Francis in CWJC No. 2552/92R is that he was appointed in 1973 on the post of Junior Statistical Assistant and subsequently to the post of Statistical Assistant sometimes in the year, 1976 and later on promoted to the post of senior Statistical Assistant in November, 1979. It is stated that on 7.2.80 an internal circular was issued for the post of Assistant Programmer (Executive Grade 1) in which certain qualification was laid down. The petitioner having all the requisite qualification applied along with 350 persons for the post of Assistant Programmer. The petitioner and other three persons were selected to the post of Assistant Programmer and accordingly letter of appointment was issued on 3.4.81. The petitioner, after completing the training, was regularly appointed on the said post vide letter dated 3.7.82. The petitioner C.V. Francis 's further case is that in the year, 1986 he was promoted to the post of Programmer (E -ll grade) which was communicated vide letter dated 12.5.86 and further promotion was given to him to the post of Senior Programmer with effect from 30.6.91.

(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the respondent -management is that respondent no.5 joined as Construction Supervisor Grade III on 20.1.72 whereas the petitioners joined the equivalent post in Bokaro Steel ltd. on 30.11.73. Respondent no.5 was then promoted to the post of Construction Supervisor Grade II on 2.5.75 whereas petitioner C.V. Francis got equivalent grade on, 1.3.77. During the year, 1976 respondent no.5 had been sent by the Company to U.S.S.R. for training and thus he was deprived of the opportunity of any promotion during the training period. As such, the contention of the petitioner that, he was senior to respondent no.5, is not correct. It is further stated that one Sri B.K. Ghosh was promoted in the executive cadre in project division and respondent no.5 being, aggrieved with the promotion of said B.K. Ghosh had filed a writ petition before this court being CWJC No. 32/82R making grievances that he was not considered for promotion during his stay in U.S.S.R. and, therefore, he should be declared senior to the persons next below him at the relevant time.