MANZOOR AHMAD NAIKOO Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The factual matrix of the petition of the petitioner is that he came to be appointed as an Orderly in the Jammu and Kashmir Urban Environmental Engineering Department, and he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. He has passed 10+2 examination and as per his merit, suitability and seniority, he has the right to be promoted to the said post. However, the official respondents promoted the private respondent Nos.6 to 8 as Incharge Junior Assistants though they were not entitled to such placement as they were appointed as 'Gang Coolies' in the first instance and as per the Recruitment Rules governing the subject they could only be promoted to the post of 'Mate'. The petitioner has proceeded to state that the respondents are now going to regularise the illegal and improper promotion of the private respondents to the post of Junior Assistant, which, if allowed, will cause serious prejudice to his rights and interests. The petitioner has claimed the grant of following reliefs in his favour:

(2.) The private respondents, i.e. the respondent Nos. 6 to 8, have resisted and controverted the petition of the petitioners, on the grounds, inter alia, that they have been appointed as 'Orderlies' and 'Gang Coolies'. The entry in the service books and the declaration of their services as 'quasi permanent' is a clear proof that the petitioner has knocked the doors of the Court with clean hands. The petitioner was type knowing and had he been so in the year 2011, when the circular for conducting the type test for the post of Junior Assistant was issued by the respondent No.2, he would have appeared in the said test and showed his worth, but once he failed to do so, he has rendered himself ineligible for the post. The private respondents have proceeded to state that after their continuous service of five years, it shall lie in the mouth of the petitioner to call in question their placement in the tentative seniority list and their confirmation as Junior Assistants. In the premises, the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 have, prayed that the petition of the petitioner be dismissed.

(3.) The official respondents, i.e. the Respondent Nos.1 to 5, have stated in their objections that the private respondents have been appointed as 'Orderlies' in the Department vide order No.117/Estt of 1997 dated 14th August, 1997 and as 'Gang Coolies' as alleged by the petitioner in his petition. The services of the respondent Nos. 6 to 7 were declared 'quasi permanent' by the respondent No.2. The services of respondent No.8 and the petitioner, among other employees, were also declared 'Quasi permanent', simultaneously, under the same order issued by the respondent No.2 bearing No. 46/Estt of 2008 dated 16th September, 2008, under endorsement No.CE/UEED/Estt/1359 dated 16th September, 2008, and, if the petitioner had any grievance against the said order, he could have agitated the same before the respondent No.2 or before the competent Court in the year 2008. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the minutes of a meeting, the copy of which is traceable in the records of the Department as already communicated to the petitioner in answer to the application filed by him under the 'Right to Information Act'. The respondent No.2 has already received a complaint duly endorsed by the respondent No.1 from some of the employees of the UEED who have accused the petitioner of stealing the official records at a time when he was working in the Correspondence/Establishment Section of the respondent No.2. It is understood as to how and from where did the petitioner get the copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 12th August, 1997. The private respondents came to be appointed as 'Orderlies' on 14th August, 1997.