BASHIR AHMAD NAIKOO Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , an Agriculture Overseer, was adjusted in his own pay and grade with charge allowance under rules against a vacant post of Field Assistant, Soil Conservation in Agriculture Department of the State by order No: 850/E of 1985 dated.25.11.1985. On 10.03.1988 by order No:22/E of 1988 petitioner was adjusted as Agriculture Overseer against one of the posts available with the department. This order of 10.03.1988 of Director Agriculture was challenged in SWP No.559/88. The learned Single Judge, after providing opportunity to the petitioner, dismissed the writ -petition on 16.04.1998. This order of dismissal of the writ petition is under challenge before us in this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) THE Appellants counsel submits that the Appellant was promoted vide order dated: 25.11.1985 to a higher post of Field Assistant, therefore, he could not have been demoted by order dated. 10.03.1988 without providing him an opportunity. The counsel further submits that notwithstanding styling of the order dated.10.03.1988 as an adjustment, the order, as per practice in the Department of Agriculture, is for all practical purposes the promotion, of course, made subject to clearance by the D.P.C. Appellant, alongwith other Overseers/Supervisors/Store Keepers/Laboratory Assistants, was promoted on the basis of his placement/position in the seniority list. The order dated: 10.03.1988, in effect reducing him in rank and status, could not have been passed without hearing appellant. The cases of others like appellant have been regularised.

(3.) THE counsel for respondents, Mr. R.A. Khan, GA, counters the submissions of Appellants counsel by canvassing that the order dated 25.11.1985, in fact simply adjusts me petitioner, among others, against a post of Field Assistant in District Pulwama in the grade of the post of Overseer, to which post and grade appellant is substantively appointed. For this adjustment, petitioner -appellant has been paid charge allowance under rules and further even his adjustment has been made subject to DPC, petitioner was never promoted under this order. Subsequent order of 10.03.1988, would fairly show that the petitioner was asked time and again to produce testimonials of eligibility, academic and technical qualification of petitioner for the post, in which he was adjusted. He was given time for the purpose to produce academic as well as technical qualifications which he failed to do although. Besides, as the arrangement ordered under order dated 25.11.1985, was a mere arrangement meant to run the field work, the adjustment of Appellant back to his substantive post as Agriculture Overseer, was not in any sense of the term his reduction in rank and /or status. The order dated: 25.11.1985, makes it amply clear that the arrangement adjusting appellant against the post of Field Assistant was in his own pay and grade (carried by the post of Agriculture Overseer to which appellant was substantively appointed) with charge -allowance. Not only so, even this arrangement was kept subject to approval of the DPC. All this should suffice to show that by passing the order of 10.03.1988, posting of appellant as Agriculture Overseer/ Store Keeper is neither demotion nor reduction in rank nor stigma.