R. K. RAINA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two* connected appeals which have been preferred by the appellantwrit petitioners against a common judgment dated 21.07.2000. The judgment impugned has disposed of a bunch of petitions.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant-writ petitioners have been functioning on adhoc basis as Incharge Carpet Training Officers, although they were holding substantive post of Store Keeper/Accounts Clerk. The post of Carpet Training Officer is regulated by statutory Rules known as All India Handicrafts Board Recruitment Rules, 1979 (for brevity 1979 Rules). There could not be any dispute that a Store Keeper/Accounts Clerk are not entitled to be considered for promotion. As per Rule 3 of 1979 Rules for appointment to the post of Carpet Training Officer only mode is by way of direct recruitment. There is no provision in the Rules for promotion. Moreover, the minimum qualification for such posts is a degree of a recognized University, desirable knowledge in the Carpet Industry, experience and aptitude in development work of handicrafts or small scale industries etc. Therefore, appointment could be made in accordance with the statutory Rules of 1979 only. In fact, the issue stands settled by LPA nos. 60/1994, 61/1994, 62/1994 and 63/1994 decided on 24.10.1997. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment has concluded as under:-

(3.) Following the aforesaid view, the learned Single Judge partially allowed the petition to the extent that respondents were to release the pay/emoluments to the appellant-writ petitioners against the posts of Carpet Training Officers after ascertaining the dates from which, and for the period they have been discharging their duties as per the job chart, that too not earlier to the date of Circular dated 20.11.1982 after verifying each individual case. A further direction to the respondents has also been issued to consider their cases for regularization/adjustment against the post of Carpet Training Officers, if eligible, in accordance with Rules governing their service condition against the existing vacancies, if any, in their respective centres, wherever required. The aforesaid view has also been taken by the Letters Patent Bench in its order dated 24.10.1997 in LPA nos. 60-63/1994. We are bound by the view taken by a Coordinate Bench and, therefore, we find no room to interfere with the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge.