MOHD ASLAM Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 5 to 7 were promoted as Vety. Asstt. Surgeons and respondents 6 to 8 as storekeeper by various orders on adhoc basis allegedly ignoring the seniority and better claims of the petitioners. The orders of promotion are alleged to be unwarranted, illegal, bad, unjustified and violative of the rules. It is submitted that the action of the respondent amounted to violation of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and was passed in complete disregard to the provisions of rule 25 of the J&K Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956 and Art.85 (1) of the J&K C.S.R. It is further alleged that the respondents 5 to 8 who were junior could not have been given the benefit of promotion at the cost of petitioners.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 it is admitted that respondent No. 5 was restored the grade of Veterinary Assistant in reference to Director, Animal Husbandry Deptt. Jammus order No. Est/DAH/ 1285 -86 dated 26 -4.1982 (annexure R -l), Respondent No. 6 as store -keeper in reference to Director, Animal Husbandry Deptt. Jammus letter No. DAH/Estt/1606 -07 dated 30.4. 1982 (annexure R -2), Respondent No. 7 was allowed officiating charge in reference to Director, Animal Husbandry Deptt. Jammus letter No. Estt/3317 -18 dated 30.5.1977(annexureR -3 and respondent No,3 temporarily promoted as store -keeper in reference to Director Animal Husbandry Deptt. Jammus order No. E -10ll/7618 dated 22.111984. Officiating promotions of the respondents are claimed to be stop -gap measures not conferring any right on them. It is submitted that the petitioners have got no right to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court against the officiating promotion of respondents 5 to 8.The issuance of the seniority list is not denied by the respondents. It is submitted that as the respondents 5 to 8 have been promoted temporarily as D.P C. has yet to be convened for making substantive promotions on the posts in question and mere conferment of the officiating promotion does not give any cause of action to the petitioner to file this petition and as respondents 5 to 8 have not been substantively promoted, the constitution of the D.P C. was not it all required.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 7 it is submitted that the tentative seniority last circulated on 6.9.1979 has since been superceded by another seniority last circulated on 26th May. 1987. According to the date furnished by the respondent No. 7 it is submitted that he was promoted as live -stock assistant on 1.7.1973 and the petitioners herein were promoted as stock asstts: much latter than him. The passing of the orders giving benefit of temporary and officiating promotion to the respondents has not been denied. The orders of respondents are claimed to be legal valid and according to law and did not violace either rule 25 of the J&K Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956 or Art. 85 of the J&K C.S.R.