JYOTI RAINA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner calls in question Government Order No.173/HUD/2012 dated 05.09.2012 to the extent it regularizes her promotion on the post of Assistant Architect from 01.08.2008 instead of 20.03.2002, from which she was promoted on officiating basis and she prays same analogy as was adopted in case of her senior colleagues, who were petitioners in earlier writ petition, being SWP No.430 of 2006, tilted Rajinder Pattu and others v. State and others or at least from 01.06.2007, when vacancy became available. She also seeks direction to respondents to issue rectified and revised seniority list showing her name at serial no.08 therein and also place private respondents below petitioner or in alternative quash seniority list to the extent of private respondents, who, according to petitioner, have been wrongly shown to the exclusion of petitioner.

(2.) Objections have been filed. Respondents 1 &2 vehemently contend that the post of Assistant Architect is to be filled up in terms of J &K Town Planners and Architect Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 1978, issued vide SRO 207 dated 11.04.1978, which provide following mode:

(3.) Respondents 1 &2 also contend that total strength of posts of Assistant Architect is 18. Out of which 06 posts are to be filled up by promotion and 12 posts by direct recruitment through PSC. Petitioner is stated to have been promoted as Assistant Architect through DPC/PSC against promotional quota of 1/3 cadre strength against which post becomes available only with effect from 01.08.2008 when she became actually eligible for promotion. The post, against which petitioner was promoted, fell vacant due to the promotion of Shri Rajesh Gupta as Divisional Architect with effect from 01.08.2008. Thus, under promotion quota, no vacancy was available till 01.08.2008 and officiating arrangement of petitioner was made against the direct recruitment vacancy with a view to run the administration, which in any case, as maintained by respondents, does create any right in favour of petitioner to claim regularization against the direct recruitment vacancy, which cannot be diverted towards promotion quota in view of express provisions contained under SRO 207 dated 11.04.1978 and also in view of specific direction passed by the Supreme Court in Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of J &K reported in AIR 2000 S.C 2386. Thus, in absence of any challenge to SRO 207, prescribing the quota and direct recruitment, no relief can be granted to the petitioner muchless the relief claimed in writ petition, as said by respondents. The decision of DPC/PSC in this background is perfectly legal and valid and deserves to be upheld. Respondents state that representation was filed by the petitioner in the year 2012 whereas promotions/direct appointments were made in year 2007 and moreover, petitioner became eligible for promotion under promotion quota after appointment of private respondents under direct quota. Hence, no question would arise to place her after Shri Harinder Arora in the seniority list.