IRFANA AHMAD Vs. STATE OF J&K AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Irfana Ahmad, petitioner herein, is a member of the Drug and Food Control (Gazetted) Service. Her initial appointment as the Drug Inspector came about in the year 1989 in the Drug and Food Control Organisation (for brevity "DFCO"), after she was recommended by the J&K Services Selection Board. Promotion was accorded in her favour, elevating her to the post of the Senior Drug Inspector. By the Government Order no.01-HME of 2002 dated 01.01.2002, amongst others, she was promoted as the In-charge Assistant Drug Analyst Laboratory, Srinagar, in her own pay and grade. The Departmental Promotion Committee/Public Service Commission vide letter no.PSC/DPC/Drug/94/23 dated 28.12.2006, cleared and recommended the promotion of the five Senior Drug Inspectors/Senior Scientific Officers to the posts of the Assistant Controller Drug/Assistant Drug Analysts against the promotion quota. The said recommendation was brought to a halt by this Court in a writ petition, being SWP no. 02/2007, titled Nazir Ahmad Wani v. State and others. However, a Bench of this Court, later on, when the learned counsel for the parties agreed, permitted the respondent department to make arrangements for smooth functioning of the department, however, subject to the rights of the parties. As a subsequence thereof, the sanction was accorded to the confirmation of the five officers against the posts of the Assistant Controller Drugs and Assistant Drug Analysts in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000. The petitioner figures at Serial no.03, amongst the beneficiaries of the Government order no.265-HME of 2008 dated 25.03.2008.

(2.) Smt. Lotika Khajuria (respondent no.2 herein), on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission made vide letter no.PSC/DR/3/Asstt. Drug Controller / 2K dated 21.10.2002, was appointed as the Assistant Drug Controller/Assistant Drug Analyst in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000, as a direct recruit vide Government Order no.260-HME of 2003 dated 20.03.2003, albeit, she was initially appointed as the Drug Inspector and promoted as the Senior Drug Inspector along with the petitioner in the respondent department. As claimed by the petitioner, given her appointment to the post of the Assistant Controller Drug/Assistant Drug Analyst in March 2002, the petitioner is senior to the respondent no.2.

(3.) The petitioner maintains that the respondent no.2 had filed a series of writ petitions, being SWP no.1528/2005, 2220/2012, 1054/2015, questioning the retrospective promotion of the petitioner. The question qua the retrospective promotion to the petitioner and others has, however, been put at rest by this Court when it delivered a judgement dated 29.07.2010 in SWP no.1654/2009 connected with SWP no.02/2007 and SWP no.1619/2006, holding the retrospective promotion valid. It is also asserted that the respondent no.2, among other petitions, had also filed SWP no.2878/2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2014. There against the respondent no.2 preferred an Appeal, which was diarised and registered as LPA (SW) no.01/2015. The petitioner was not made party respondent, so she sought her impleadment. She was arrayed as the party respondent by the Order dated 20.04.2015. The Division Bench of this Court, vide judgement dated 13.05.2015, directed the State Public Service Commission to consider the proposal to be received from the respondents for filling up the posts of the Deputy Controller, DFCO, on the substantive basis and conclude the matter by eight weeks after the Commission was constituted and once the posts of the Deputy Controllers were filled up on the regular basis, the respondents would consider the eligible Deputy Drug Controllers for filling up the posts of the Controller, DFCO, and complete the process within eight weeks, after the Deputy Drug Controllers were in place on the substantive basis. The respondents were also directed to consider all the in-charge Drugs Deputy Controllers in accordance with the rules, regulations, Government instructions, for placement of one of them as in-charge Controller, DFCO, and the officer so placed would hold such position till the State Government, on the recommendation of the PSC, takes a decision as regards the filling up of the posts of the Deputy Controllers on the substantive basis. The respondents were also directed that for the intervening period, i.e. the date the posts of the Deputy Drug Controllers were filled up on the substantive basis and the date the post of the Controller Drugs was so filled up, that stop-gap charge of the Controller Drugs to senior most Deputy Drug Controller would be given, but such arrangement shall not extend beyond a period of eight weeks and by that time the Controller Drugs must necessary be in place.