NAZIR AHMAD Vs. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Section 103 of the State Constitution -the petitioners, who were Industrial Promotion Officers respectively in Districts Baramulla and Kupwara at the time of filing the writ petition on June 27 1985 have cballerged order No.169 -E of 1983 dated May 9, 1983 and orders No.121 -E of 1985 dated March 8,1985 No.140 -E of 1985 dated April 1,1985 and No. 128 -E of 1985 dated March 11, 1985 passed respectively by respondents 1,2 and 6 in favour of respondents 3,4 and 5, who were at the relevant time, when tfre petition was filed, were promoted and working in their own pay and grade as Manager Credit in different districts mentioned in the petition. Order dated May 9,1983 gives the approval of adhoc promotion of respondents 3,4 and 5 with effect from May 1,1973 retrospectively.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the petitioners is based on their seniority recognised by the department on their appointment as Assistant Extension Officer Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Assistant Extension officer (for short hereinafter referred to as A.E.O) on 19 -1 -1973 and petitioner No.2 as A.E.O on 5.5.1973. Similarly respondents 3,4 and 5 in that very serial order below the petitioners were appointed A.E.O. on 5 -5 -1973. It is alleged that respondent No.1 promoted respondents 3 to 5 by order dated December 23,1976 as Economic Investigators withaut prejudice to the seniority as stop -gap arrangement in the higher grade of Rs.475 -850. A tentative seniority list was issued on April 22, 1974, and another tentative seniority list was issued on February 9,1980, wherein the petitioners were shown on the posts of A.E.O. senior to respondents 3 to 5. Against this tentative seniority list objections were invited, which made subject to the objections and another tentative seniority list was issued on May 1,1982 inviting objections till May 22,1982. In that list the seniority list of the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 was fixed in the following serial order: -

(3.) THE petition is contested by the respondents on several grounds. Respondent No.1 in his counter affidavit projected certain preliminary objections on the maintain ability of the writ petition on the ground of pendency of the appeal as well as on the ground of laches and on the merits. The only contention raised appears to be that when the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened in 1982, it was found that the petitioners had not undergone training, hence they could not be promoted. Justifying the retrospective promotion, it is submitted that in fact they were promoted on 1 -5 -1978 hence their promotion much prior in time before the petitioners, none of their rights under Articles Hand 16 of the Constitution of India have been violated. Respondents 3,4 and 5 have also filed their counter denying all the allegations made with a further allegation that in order to get the promotion on the post of A.E.O. the petitioners were required to complete at least two years probation period in the grade of Senior Assistant, where as petitioner No.1 has put in only six months service and on the promoted post of A E.O he was required to be cleared by the Departmental Promotion Committee, which was never done. The selection committee alongwith the answering respondents interviewed 90 candidates after proper scrutiny in the written and viva voce test The answering respondents 3 to 5 were duly selected as A.E.O. coupled with fact that they had completed successfully reorientation training for Extension Officers on merit and suitability and technical training. They were duly promoted and cleared by the Departmental Promotion Committee, hence mere inter -seseniority will not give right to the petitioners to get the promotion, the petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on all the grounds.