GULSHAN BANDAY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this petition the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of co-warranto removing respondent No. 4 from the post of Secretary; with a further prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the promotion of respondent No. 4 as Secretary vide Order No. SKICC/PS/1466-74 dated 03.11.2001 and the seniority list dated 3.9.1993 so far as it relates to petitioner; with a further direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to fix the seniority of petitioner ahead off respondent No. 4 and to consider her case for grant of promotion to higher grade/cadre/post of Secretary retrospectively on the grounds taken in the writ petition.

(2.) Precisely the case of writ petitioner is that respondent No. 4 came to be appointed/promoted as Secretary dehors the rules and was ineligible.

(3.) It is contended that petitioner was appointed vide Order No. SKICC/88/4934-39 dated 9.8.1988 issued by the Executive Director, Sher-i-Kashmir International Conference Centre, Srinagar (for short, SKICC) as Typist in the pay scale of 800-1500 with effect from 01.07.1988 on probation for a period of one year and respondent No. 4 was appointed vide Order No. -SKICC/88/4940-45 dated 9.8.1988 with effect from 01.07.1988. She and respondent No. 4 were working as Daily Wagers before their appointment. The appointment order of petitioner as Typist was issued first and in favour of respondent No. 4 was issued later, thus was senior to respondent No. 4. Petitioner is 10+2 and has obtained National Trade Certificate from National Council for Vocational Training in the Stenography Trade. She has completed computer training course successfully. She has undergone one month training in internet from Off-limits Cyber Cafe and also Office Management Course conducted by the J&K Institute of Management Public Administration and Rural Development. Petitioner was and is meritorious and senior to respondent No. 4, but despite of that official respondent promoted respondent No. 4 ahead of petitioner which has seriously affected the rights of petitioner. It is further contended that official respondents have failed to determine the seniority of petitioner and have also promoted respondent No. 4 as Personal Secretary though no such post was available. Her designation was re-designated as Personal Secretary to Director without any competence and she was shown senior to petitioner in the seniority list. Vide order dated 23.03.1999 respondent No. 4 was conferred the grade of 4000-6000 retrospectively with effect from May 1991 without approval from competent authority. Petitioner made so many representations but in vain. Respondents have also issued order dated 03.11.2001 whereby grade of 6700-10700 was released in favour of respondent No. 4 though she was not eligible at all, but despite of lacking eligibility and competence she was granted promotion from time to time and promotion as Secretary.