NARINDER NATH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under section 103 of the State Constitution read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner herein has prayed for quashing order No.391 -F of 1975 dated 18 -7 -1975 and Order No. 279 -F of 1976 dated April 30, 1976 marked as Annexures A and B with the petition. whereby respondents 2 to 6 were promoted as Excise & Taxation Officer. A further prayer is made for directions to respondent No.1 to make the promotions of E.T.O.s in accordance withlaw and to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the said post giving him all the due benefits from the date other respondents 2 to 5 were promoted.

(2.) PETITIONER was directly recruited to the post of Inspector in the Excise & Taxation Department of J&K Government on June 10,1965 and was confirmed against the said post vide Order No.140/Adm of 1975 issued by Excise -Commissioner, J&K Government, Srinagar. It is further stated that he successfully qualified the Excise & Taxation Departmental Examination conducted by J&K Public Service Commission in the year 1974 Out of the respondents 2 to 6 respondent No.2 was appointed on the same date, respondent No.3 on 16 -6 -1965 and respondent No.4 on 6 -8 -1965, respondent No.5 on 30 -1 -1965 and respondent No.6 on 17 -9 -1963, In the seniority list issued on December 1,1966 by Government (Finance Department), petitioner & all the respondents appear at Serial Nos. 63,62,64,73,78 and 43 respectively. It is stated that in accordance with Rule 24 of J&K Civil services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the rules), the seniority amongst the persons working as Inspectors in the J&K Excise & Taxation Department was to be determined by the dates of their first appointments. It is alleged because respondents 3,4 & 5 were appointed after the petitioner. The petitioner was senior to them only respondents 2 and 6 became senior to the petitioner. It is further submitted that according to the rules, the petitioner became senior to respondents 2,4.5 & 6 in 1974, the moment he qualified the Departmental Examination E,T.Os standard.

(3.) ON representation made to the Government by the petitioner after qualifying the departmental examination for re -fixation of his seniority, petitioner was assigned Serial No. 69 whereas respdt No.3 was assigned Serial No. 62 & respondent No.2 Serial No 64 in the seniority List issued on May 27,1978. An attack is, therefore, made on the promotions of respondents 2 to 6 that while respondents 2 to 5 were appointed on adhoc a stop -gap arrangement for a period of six months & respondent No.6 was promoted without considering the case 6f the petitioner for the promotion on the post of Excise & Taxation officer, the provisions of Rule 6 & Rule 3 (h) of J&K Excise & Sales Tax (Recruitment & Classification of Services (Gazetted) Rules, 1970 have been voilated. It is further pointed out that apart from the fact that the case of the petitioner was not considered while making the promotions of respondents 3 to 6, provisions of Rule 16 of "J&K Excise & Taxation (Recruitment & Conditions of Service). Rules, 1969 have also been violated, because for promotion to the post of E.T. Os. only those inspectors, who have passed/qualified the E.T.O. Departmental Examination were to be considered in accordance with the merit -cum -seniority.