GULZAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in SWP No. 247/2006 on 01.01.2009, the claim of the petitioner along with five others persons came to be considered for retrospective promotion by respondent No. 1. Vide Govt. Order No. 684-Edu of 2011 dated 02.12.2011, the petitioner was granted promotion as Lecturer retrospectively w.e.f. 03.05.1992, notionally and regular from the date he joined. While the petitioner had been fighting for his regularization as Lecturer, the respondent No. 1 vide Govt. Order No. 370-Edu of 2003 dated 01.04.2003 accorded sanction to the placement of eligible candidates as Senior Lecturers. The aforesaid Govt. Order included the name of one Sh. Lal Hussain figuring at S. No. 165 of the seniority of Senior Lecturers under ST category. His placement as Senior Lecturer, however, was given w.e.f. 01.01.1999. The said Sh. Lal Hussain was further regularized as Principal 10+2 w.e.f. 01.02.2005 vide Govt. Order No. 592-Edu of 2009 dated 27.07.2009. Since the petitioner had been regularized as Lecturer w.e.f. 03.05.1992 in terms of Order dated 02.12.2011 (supra), as such, as a consequence thereof, he was further placed as Senior Lecturer w.e.f. 01.01.1999 and his seniority as Senior Lecturer was fixed at S. No. 964-A. In short the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of Govt. Order No. 562-Edu of 2012 dated 10.07.2012 the petitioner became senior to Sh. Lal Hussain in the cadre of Senior Lecturers, therefore, had a superior right of being placed as Principal and Incharge Chief Education Officer. It is further submitted that though wrong done in the case of the petitioner was rectified and he was placed at the appropriate place in the seniority list of Senior Lecturers yet its effect was not given in so far as further promotion as Principal 10+2 and Incharge Chief Education Officer is concerned, and on the other hand Sh. Lal Hussain was not only regularized as Principal 10+2 w.e.f. 01.02.2005 but was further placed as Incharge Chief Education Officer and even the Joint Director.

(2.) Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by way of SWP No. 128/2015 which was disposed of by this Court on 22.01.2015 directing the respondent No. 1 to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner for regularization as Principal 10+2 as also Incharge Chief Education Officer. It is alleged that the judgment passed by this Court was not complied with which constrained the petitioner to file contempt petition which is still subjudice in the Court.

(3.) The pith and substance of the grievance projected by the petitioner in this case is that while as on one hand the respondents are yet to comply with the directions issued by this Court and give him the actual benefits accrued to him by virtue of his promotion as Lecturer on 03.05.1992 and Senior Lecturer w.e.f. 01.01.1999, on the other hand, the respondents have not only placed Sh. Lal Hussain his immediate junior as Incharge Chief Education Officer but have also picked up the respondents 04 to 06 for their placement as Incharge Chief Education Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the moment the petitioner is treated to be senior to Lal Hussain, he becomes entitled to be regularized as Principal w.e.f. 01.02.2005 and that being the position he would have superior right of being placed as Incharge Chief Education Officer before any of the private respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me to the seniority position to substantiate his contentions.