RAJEEV GANDOTRA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions, all filed by the petitioner arise out of the claim of the petitioner to be appointed by way of promotion as Block Development Officer in the Department of the Rural Development. From the pleadings of the petitioner as set out in all these petitions, following relevant facts emerge.

(2.) The petitioner joined the Department of Rural Development as Cameraman somewhere in the year 1991 and was later on promoted as Audio Visual Operator (AVO) in the year 1993. This appointment, as is claimed, was made against the sanctioned post of Audio Visual Operator in the Directorate of Rural Development, Jammu. After serving for more than two decades, the petitioner did not get any further promotion and, thus, faced stagnation during all these years. It was only in the year 2015, the respondent No.2 vide his communication No. Estt/Gnl-41/BDO/17551 dtd. 20/7/2015 recommended amongst others the name of the petitioner for temporarily looking after the work of vacant rural blocks of Jammu Division. When these recommendations made by the respondent No.2 qua the petitioner were not acted upon, he filed writ petition (SWP No. 2614/2015) in this Court seeking inter alia a direction to the respondents to consider and appoint him as Block Development Officer on the basis of aforesaid recommendations of the respondent No.2. This Court vide its interim order dtd. 18/9/2015 directed the respondents to consider the recommendation made by the respondent No.2 in accordance with the rules and regulations/policy applicable. The matter was considered by the respondent No.1 and vide Govt. Order No. 31-RD and PR of 2016 dtd. 25/1/2016, the claim of the petitioner for his appointment by promotion to the post of Block Development Officer was rejected on the ground that the same was not tenable under the Jammu and Kashmir Rural Development (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2003 (For short, "the Rules of 2003"). This order of respondent No.1, however, has not been specifically called in question in any of these petitions. It further transpires that the respondent No.2 vide his Order No. 1001-DRD of 2015 dtd. 6/11/2015, made a temporary arrangement in the wake of the then ensuing Panchayat Election and ordered that the petitioner shall look after the work of Panchayat Supervisor till further orders. There is another order placed on record by the petitioner issued by the respondent No.2 on 10/2/2016 making similar arrangement with only difference that in terms of order dtd. 6/11/2015 (supra) the petitioner was asked to look after the work of Panchayat Supervisor, but, in terms of the later order passed on 10/2/2016 by the respondent No.2, he was directed to work as Panchayat Supervisor. Lateron by a subsequent order issued by the respondent No.2 bearing No.339-DRD of 2016 dtd. 21/4/2016, the petitioner was adjusted against the post of Panchayat Supervisor till further orders. The petitioner has primarily built up his case on this order of the respondent No.2 to claim that with effect from 21/4/2016, he has been permanently adjusted against the post of Panchayat Supervisor and has, therefore, become entitled to further promotion to the post of Block Development Officer under the rules of 2003.

(3.) After adjusting the petitioner as Panchayat Supervisor, the respondent No.2 vide Order No.501-DRD of 2016 dtd. 18/6/2016, ordered that the petitioner Audio Visual Operator working against the post of Panchayat Supervisor shall temporarily look after the work of Block Development Officer, Sewna in addition to his own duties till further orders. In the order, it was further provided that the petitioner would continue to draw his salary against the post of Panchayat Supervisor of the Directorate Rural Development, Jammu. While the petitioner was looking after the Rural Development Block, Sewna, he was also directed by respondent No.2 to look after the work of Block Development Officer, Chenani in addition to his own duties. This was done by the respondent No.2 in terms of order No.163-DRD of 2017 dtd. 4/3/2017. The petitioner who was holding the post of Audio Visual Operator substantively and adjusted against the post of Panchayat Supervisor continued to work as Incharge Block Development Officer in the Jammu Division till respondent No.1 vide Govt. Order No.46-RD &PR of 2019 dtd. 12/2/2019 rescinded the orders issued in favour of the petitioner and three others placing them as Incharge Block Development Officers. This order has been impugned by the petitioner in SWP No. 271/2019. In between also, the petitioner filed writ petition, i.e., SWP No. 1707/2018 seeking inter alia a direction to the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner as Panchayat Supervisor and treating him as such, regularize his services as Block Development Officer.