TAJAMUL HUSSAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Handicrafts Promotion Officer employees of respondent No. 2 seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the promotion of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 vide Order No. 11/2/63 -AD II dated 9 -11 -1983 and Order No. 3/2/85 Aim HI/4435 dt. 2 -4 -1986 impugned, to the posts of Assistant Directors and a direction to the respondent 1 and 2 to consider him for appointment against a post of Assistant Director lying vacant under the control of respondent.

(2.) TO appreciate the prayer made in the petition, it is necessary to give facts of the case which appear to have given rise for filing this petition by the petitioner.

(3.) IN the year 1975, the petitioner appears to have been appointed as Junior Field Officer under the control of respondent No. 2 after fulfilling the requisite qualification for the post. However, with effect from 1978 the petitioner felt hostile treatment from the respondents when against the rules and norms maintained by the Deptt. he was shown in seniority list Junior at No. 14 though deserving to be listed higher up. On representation to the higher authorities, his seniority was restored and he was shown at serial No, 11 of the seniority list. The hostile approach of the respondent alleged by the petitioner got again reflected, when the post of Junior Field Officer held by him carrying the grade of Rs. 550 -900 was redesignated as Carpet Training Officer, in reduced grade of Rs. 550 -800 treating the Carpet Training Officer, Investigators in the department, as feeding cadre to the post of promotion officers in the grade of Rs, 500 -900, thus clubbing all inferior posts of even Store -keepers, Account clerks Junior to the petitioner, holding this post of Handicrafts Promotion Officer a stop to rise to the post of Assistant Directors. The petitioner got frequency transferred at least six times from 1976 to 1978, thereafter again. Upto 1984 ten times the petitioner though on deputation as Handicrafts Promotion Officer, subsequently holding the post of Carpet Training Officer being Post -Graduate above the required qualification a Graduate only. The respondents 4, 5 were promoted on 30 -6 -1980, 15 -5 -80 leaving out respondent No. 3 who challenged the order of promotion of the said respondents before the court and vide judgment dated 5 -8 -1933 in writ petition No. 34 of 1981, the selection to the post of Assistant Directors were ordered to be effected a fresh in accordance with the rules on considering all the eligible candidates. The respondent did not hold the selection of the post of Assistant Director but respondent No. 6 who was even least to earlier in 1980 got promoted on deputation. Even in the case one M. L. Kak, Assistant Director, Extension was granted in the deputation term without considering the petitioner who also eligible to hold the post. Ultimately the Special Officer vide his letter annexure C recommended the filling of two vacant posts of Assistant Directors including his adjustment against one of the post. The petitioner had filed a civil suit also obtaining a direction from the court of Addl. District Judge Srinagar, to consider him for promotion which direction was complied in breach only, the petitioner was compelled to withdraw the suit. The petitioner made representation and was given verbal assurances for promotion by the authorities but short of any results. The hostile attitude of the respondent got finally exhibited when in Sept. 1985 two posts of Assistant Directors in Marketing Services Centre on deputation were advertised. The petitioner was called for interview, to be held on 5 -3 -1986 at 10 -30 A.M. at New Delhi. The interview slip dated 11 -1 -1986 was sent to the petitioner and delivered very late on 3 -3 -1986 at 5 -25 P.M. indicated as per Annexure E and D though to arrange transport and air passage to Delhi, within a short period of one day was impossible despite that petitioner wanted to make an attempt to go to Delhi, to appear in interview but was not allowed by his immediate officer as reflected in annexure E. The petitioner, if allowed to appear in the interview on being relieved he was sure to have been selected due to his higher qualification and experience in the department but due to the hostile attitude of the respondent not relieving him to compete in the interview he was deprived of the right of consideration by the commission for a higher post on deputation which action is discriminatory and hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this writ petition for quashing appointment of respondent No. 6 and direction to respondent No. 2 to promote or consider him at least for promotion to the post of Assistant Director against one of the posts among two posts lying vacant for which he fulfills all the conditions.