GEORGE HUSSAIN SANGEEN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Junior Engineers (Civil) were assigned the charge of Assistant Engineers in their own pay and grade. This stop gap arrangement is undone by the Government vide Order No. 138/Works of 2003 dated 1.4.2003, consequently, this writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the Government has not correctly determined the number of vacancies falling within the quota of degree holders. Respondents have refuted the contention stating that in pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suraj Prakash Gupta versus State of Jammu & Kashmir, a high power Committee was constituted and the report submitted by the Committee on 22.10.2000 was approved by the Government on 27.12.2001, consequently, guidelines came to be formulated which enjoin upon the respondents to adhere to the ratio envisaged by rules in all cases of appointment immaterial whether it is temporary, stop gap or ad hoc and in adherence to the said guidelines coupled with mandate of the judgment, the reversion of in charge Assistant Engineers, 64 degree holders and 54 diploma holders became imperative so as to restore the quota of direct recruits and in the process the petitioners also got reverted.

(2.) THE stance aforementioned of the respondents is vehemently disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the strength of communications dated 22.5.2003 and 9.4.2003 which indicate that the exercise with respect to fixation of cadre strength at various levels of the engineering service has not reached to its logical conclusion. Since the stand of the respondents that quota position is already determined runs contrary to the communication brought on record, they were asked to come up with a definite stand but they opted for oblivion and I find no legal impediment to draw an inference that the process to determine the vacancy position is yet to be completed but then question arises as to which of the legal or fundamental rights of the petitioners are infringed by saying good bye to the stop gap arrangement. The question needs to be appreciated in the light of legal position that when promotion is made substantively to a higher post it begets a right to a promotee to that particular post or rank and reversion of such promotee to a lower post undoubtedly amounts to reduction in rank. Admittedly, the petitioners have not been promoted to the higher rank, obviously, assignment of charge of a higher post does not confer any right or promotion upon the petitioners and short of right to the post, reversion cannot be said to be impermissible under law for the simple reason that reversion from charge of a post in ones own pay and grade to a substantive post is not reduction in rank.

(3.) SITUATION would be different if reversion is such which entails penal consequences like forfeiture of pay, allowances, loss of seniority etc. or casts a stigma. It would be again a different situation if the petitioners were reverted allowing other similarly circumstance persons to continue on the arrangement. If that be so, the respondents had to justify the reversion and unless explained satisfactorily, it would amount to discrimination violating the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. From the reply filed by the respondents it is clear that reversion of the petitioners from officiating arrangement to be posts held by them substantively is due to administrative reasons. More so, it is not a case where petitioners are being replaced by a similar arrangement. Thus no motives can be attributed to the respondents.