G N MULLICK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS , Head Assistants in the Sheep Husbandry Department, feel aggrieved of the promotion of the private respondent Nos. to the post of Section Officer. Their complaint is that they were ignored for promotion despite being senior and respondent No. 3 was promoted by order dated 29 -04 -89 on the basis of his having undergone the Secretarial training - a qualification prescribed in Schedule II appended to SRO 389/87(Recruitment Rules). They accordingly challenge the validity of this prescribed qualification and also pray for a direction to the official respondents to promote them retrospectively from 29 -04 -1989 when respondent No. 3 was promoted.

(2.) PETITIONERS question the validity of the prescribed qualification on the primary plea that it was discriminatory in the nature and violative of their right under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution in as much as no such requirement was provided in the Recruitment Rules of any other Service for promotion to the post of Section Officer. It is also contended that as it was not in their hands to be deputed for the requisite Secretarial Training, for which private respondent No. 3 was so deputed by order dt.31 -10 -1984, therefore, this prescribed qualification was incapable of being acquired by them at the relevant time and they could not be deprived of promotion on this basis. Petitioners support their case by referring to the subsequent deletion of this qualification vide SRO 356/90 dt.26 -12 -1990 - Their counsel Mr. Kotwal contended that the State respondent had deleted it after feeling convinced of its invalidity and thats why SRO 356/90 was passed as a curative measures. Proceeding on this premise, he argued that even though this SRO did not give the amendment any retrospective effect, this court should do so in the fact and circumstances of the case to render the petitioners eligible for promotion retrospectively. He cited 1971 JKLR 585 in support.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 have filed objections taking the expert stand that petitioners were ineligible for promotion as they had undergone the Secretarial training course as required under the Recruitment Rules at the relevant time. It is submitted that the prescribed qualification was inconsonance with the requirement of the post of Section Officer and was not discriminatory in any manner or violative of the petitioners right under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The seniority claim of the petitioner vis -a -vis private respondent No. 3, however, is not disputed.