J P MATHUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition by one Shri J. P. Mathur under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ, direction or order against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 restraining them from confirming respondents Nos. 4 and 5 namely, Lissuram and Phool Chand respectively, on the post of Lower Division Clerks. The petitioner has sought other incidental reliefs as well.

(2.) THE petitioner entered in Government service as a Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Senior Settlement Officer under the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Govt. of India. THE post in this Department was temporary. THE petitioner was thereafter appointed an Upper Division Clerk with effect from 28-1-54. He was subsequently appointed by promotion as a Junior Accountant with effect from 22-9-56. He got further promotion as Junior Field Inspector with effect from 1-5-57. THE petitioner was then reappointed as a Junior Accountant. He worked as Senior Accountant with effect from 16-11-63. THE petitioner was declared to be quasi permanent in that Department with effect from 1-7-56 in terms of rule (b) of Rule 2 read with sub-rule (ii) of R. 3 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, hereinafter to be referred as "the 1949 Rules". A seniority list of the non-gazetted staff was issued on 20-7-62. According to the petitioner, his name appears at serial number 5 amongst Senior Accountants and at No. 5 as Junior Accountant at No. 10 amongst Upper Division Clerks, at No. 5 Junior Field Inspectors and at No. 20 amongst Lower Division Clerks. Respondent Lissuram, who was a member of the scheduled caste, came, to be appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 11-3 64. His name appeared at No. 71 in the seniority list of Lower Division Clerks. Phoolchand, respondent No. 5, came to be appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 4-3-66. Thus, according to the petitioner, he had put in a much longer service than the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and was much senior to them. Since the Department was temporary, the petitioner could not be confirmed for long as any permanent vacancy was not available. To relieve the hardships of all the temporary employees of the Government, the President made 50 percent of the posts other than class IV posts in such non-permanent departments as had existed for not less than 10 years and as were not proposed to be wound up in the near future as permanent, but this was on the condition that the posts were in existence for a period of 5 years or more and were required indefinitely. THE petitioner proceeds to say that according to the orders of the President, 14 posts of the Lower Division Clerks in the Rehabilitation Department were made permanent. According to the seniority list of Lower Division Clerks 14 other persons who were senior to the petitioner came to be confirmed as Lower Division Clerks- THE petitioner maintains that certain persons in the seniority list whose names appear at Nos. 6, 8 and 9 cannot be confirmed as Lower Division Clerks in the Rehabilitation Department, because they came from the ex-Custodian Office of the Government of Rajasthan. Thus, according to the petitioner, there were three permanent posts of Lower Division Clerks against two persons senior to the petitioner and the petitioner being the third could be confirmed. THE petitioner's grievance is that Lissuram and Phoolchand, respondents Nos. 4 & 5, respectively, are being considered for confirmation as Lower Division Clerks, even though they were much junior to the petitioner. THE petitioner refers to an Office Memorandum of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 12-9-68 and contends that this Office Memorandum is standing in the way of the petitioner's confirmation as the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 being the members of the scheduled castes would get weightage over him. THE case of the petitioner in nut-shell is that the Office Memorandum of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs is contrary to rules and is calculated to override the claim of the petitioner who had been in quasi-permanent service of the Government since long after his remaining temporary for a number of years THE Office memorandum, according to the petitioner, is hit by the provisions of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) THE writ petition has no force and is accordingly hereby dismissed. THE parties are left to bear their own costs. .