HARBANS LAL BHAGAT Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order of promotion favouring members of the Jammu and Kashmir Agriculture (Gazetted) Service to different posts of different classes and categories carrying different pay scales bearing Govt. Order No.32-Agri of 2005 dated 18.02.2005, having witnessed an amendment by corrigendum vide Govt. Order No. Agri-E/40/2001-DPC dated 20.12.2005, substituting Sh. H.L. Bhagat, the petitioner herein by one Sh. K.L. Gupta against the post of a Plant Protection officer borne on the service called "the Jammu and Kashmir Agriculture (Gazetted) Service", therefore, this writ petition against the corrigendum aforementioned which reads:-

(2.) The case set out by the petitioner in his writ petition against the corrigendum is that it was not open to the Government to revoke the order of his promotion because it was made on the basis of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short DPC). Supporting the corrigendum, it is averred by the respondents that it was name of Sh. K.L. Gupta which had to be reflected in the promotion list but out of sheer mistake, the petitioner Sh. H.L. Bhagat's name was included and when the mistake was noticed, the Government had no option but to correct the same, accordingly it was corrected. The contention raised by the official respondents makes it imperative to examine the issue in the light of the original record of DPC/PSC which is produced in original, perusal whereof reveals that the DPC comprising of Sh. M.S. Khan (the then Member of PSC), Sh. B.R. Kundal (the then Principal Secretary to Government, Agricultural Production Department) and Sh. Gazanfar Hussain (the then Special Secretary to General Administration Department) assisted by Sh. Sham Lal and Dr. Irshad the then Secretary and Dy. Secretary of the PSC respectively in its meeting on 29.07.2003, chaired by the Chairman of the Committee Sh. M.S. Khan, considered hundreds of eligible members of the Agriculture Gazetted Service for promotion to the Jammu and Kashmir Agriculture (Gazetted) Service on the touchstone of the Recruitment Rules notified vide SRO 179 dated 02.06.1988 inclusive of 28 officers against class-IV posts and process of consideration clinched in recommendation favouring a large number of officers including 8 officers under class-IV, one being Sh. K.L. Gupta. It is very clear from the record that Sh. H.L. Bhagat-petitioner was not considered at all so the recommendation in his favour for promotion to the post of Plant Protection officer could not be thought of Being clear from the record that no recommendation even worth the name was made in favour of Sh. H.L. Bhagat-petitioner, no fault could be found with the impugned corrigendum, for, it was obligatory upon the respondents to correct the mistake, set the record straight and undo the wrong done to the victim of the error.

(3.) This brings me to the ground of denial of consideration for promotion to the petitioner to the post of Director Agriculture or any other equivalent post retrospectively. In this behalf, it is appropriate to refer to the direction passed by the court in SWP No.285/1991 commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion. Record of writ petition was sent for, perusal whereof reveals that it was filed by the petitioner on 26.03.1991 in furtherance of an endeavour to compel the respondents to appoint him as a Block Development officer in the Rural Development Department but having failed to persuade the court, sought its withdrawal which was accorded on 07.11.1991 with the following direction:-