JUDGMENT Anil Dev Singh, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated October 9, 2001 in C.W.P.No. 1945/1992 whereby the claim of the appellant for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Animal Husbandry) in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 3,000-4,500 w.e.f. August 30, 1989, the date prior to the promotion of the fifth respondent as Deputy Director (Floriculture), was rejected. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:-
2. On 15th May, 1979, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Project Officer (Vet.) in District Rural Development Agency, (for short 'D.R.D.A.') in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900, whereas the fifth respondent was appointed as Extension Officer (Agriculture) in D.R.D.A. on July 1, 1976 in the lower scale of Rs. 425-700. Subsequently, with effect from November 1, 1982, the fifth respondent was promoted as Agricultural Officer in the grade of Rs. 550-900. On July 1 1984, the fifth respondent was placed in the grade of Rs. 650-1200. Thereafter, on July 1, 1984 the fifth respondent was appointed as Deputy Director in the pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000. Finally, on January 29, 1991, the Governing Body decided to grant him pay-scale of Rs. 3000-4500.
3. The appellant allowed the fifth respondent to steal a march over him as he did not question his promotions and appointments in higher posts or grades by invoking legal remedies available to him.
4. In the year 1992, D.R.D.A. was wound up and the appellant and the fifth respondent were absorbed in the office of Development Commissioner as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and Deputy Director (Floriculture) respectively. It was only in the year 1992 that the appellant woke up and filed a writ petition seeking promotion to the post of the Deputy Director w.e.f. August 30, 1989 by drawing parallel with the case of the fifth respondent. In essence the appellant seeks to reverse the situation created by the extinct D.R.D.A. The appellant and the fifth respondent have been absorbed in the office of the Development Commissioner in the Capacities in which they were working.
5. Since the appellant was working as Assistant Project Officer (Vet) in the scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500 (pre-revised) and the fifth respondent was working as Deputy Director in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4,500 (pre-revised) when D.R.D.A. was wound up, both were to be given posts and grades in the second respondent organisation equivalent to the ones held by them in the D.R.D.A. In other words, the appellant as well as the fifth respondent were to be absorbed in the respondent organisation against the posts corresponding to the ones they were holding in the D.R.D.A. Accordingly, the appellant was absorbed against the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, while the fifth respondent was absorbed against the post of Deputy Director (Floriculture).
6. The learned Single Judge found that there was no merit in the claim of the appellant for equating his case with that of the fifth respondent. The learned Single Judge also noted that the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon is not in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Deputy Director. The appellant has not been able to show that the finding of the learned Single Judge suffers from any infirmity.
7. In the circumstances, therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.