Mr. Jagpal Singh vs The Council For Advancement Of ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 496 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART) was incorporated in September, 1986. Another society originally incorporated as IFFHC came into existence in the year 1973. Its name was subsequently changed to People's Action for Development (India) (PADI). A third society named Council for Advancement of Rural Technology (CART) was also incorporated in October 1982. PADI and CART were ultimately amalgamated with CAPART.

2. Petitioner joined PADI as a PAD Field Worker on 9.1.1974. Respondent No., Sh. V.K. Babu joined PADI, also as a PAD Field Worker on 2.4.1974. Respondent No.3 joined the respondent as a PAD Worker in December 1973. Respondent No.4 joined respondent as an STA worker on 1st August, 1977 and respondent No.5 joined as a PAD worker on 15.7.1975.

3. PAD workers were in 2 categories. Category 1 comprised of field workers and the second category consisted of technical workers. Field workers were appointed ad-hoc but the technical workers were selected as per the recruitment rules.

4. Pursuant to an advertisement issued on 20th February, 1982 for appointments to the post of Senior Technical Assistants (STAs), petitioner along with respondent No.2 and one Sh. S.D. Singh were appointed to the post of STA.

5. Field Workers who were appointed on ad-hoc basis were regularized with effect from 1.1.1984.

6. As noted above, field workers formed one of the two categories of PAD workers.

7. Effect of the aforesaid was that petitioner who was originally a PAD worker on being appointed to the post of STA pursuant to the advertisement issued in February, 1982 came on the cadre of STA workers and the other field workers continued in the cadre of PAD workers.

8. In 1985, additional posts of Assistant Directors, Deputy Regional Co-ordinators and Programmer Co-ordinator in the same scale were created. In all, 7 posts, 4 Assistant Directors, 2 Deputy Regional Co-ordinators and 1 Programmer Co-ordinator were brought into existence.

9. Recruitment rules were framed. As per the recruitment rules, 25% posts had to be filled by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion.

10. Method of recruitment notified as per the recruitment rules was as under:-

Direct Recruitment - 25%

Departmental - 75%

Promotion

11. For promotees, the following 40 point roster was to be as below:-

1. Field Staff/PAD workers;

2. STAs;

3. Direct Recruits;

4. Field Staff/PAD workers;

5. STAs;

6. Direct Recruits;

7. Field Staff/PAD workers;

8. STAs; and so on up to 40 point.

12. As per the recruitment regulation, Sr. Technical Assistant (STA) with 5 years of regular service were eligible for promotion.

13. There existed 4 vacancies which had to be filled up. The four vacancies fell in the promotee quota. DPC was held. On 29.3.1985, promotion order was issued. 2 PAD Workers and 2 Sr. Technical Assistants were promoted. PAD Workers promoted were respondent No.3 and 5. Sr. Technical Assistants who were promoted were respondent No.2 and one Sh. Mahender Pal.

14. Grievance of the petitioner is that he had joined as a PAD worker prior to respondents 3 and 5. His further grievance was that the 4 posts had to be filled by preparing a common seniority list of PAD workers and Sr. Technical Assistants and thereafter promotion affected. According to the petitioner by allocating two posts to PAD workers, petitioner was denied a right to be considered for promotion against 2 posts. It is the grievance of the petitioner that PAD Workers who had joined later than the petitioner as PAD Workers stood promoted. They were junior to the petitioner.

15. Prayer made by the petitioner is as under:-

''(i) to quash the impugned order dated 29th March, 1985 (Annexure A) by appropriate writ, order or direction including writ of Certiorari;

(ii) to direct the respondent No.1 to prepare the seniority list of S.T.A. and make the promotion according to seniority and put the petitioner at appropriate place by appropriate writ, order or direction including writ of Mandamus;

(iii) to direct the Respondent No.1 to give the petitioner departmental promotion to the post of Assistant Director in the pay scale of Rs.700-1300 (old) and Rs.2200-4000 (revised) w.e.f. 29.3.1985 and to give all consequential benefits available under the law by appropriate writ, order or direction; and

(iv) to pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.''

16. Facts noted above would reveal that Sr. Technical Assistants were appointed as per notified recruitment rules and petitioner came to be appointed as a Senior Technical Assistant in February, 1982. PAD workers who were appointed ad-hoc had no security of service and no promotional avenues, on 1.1.1984 the ad-hoc PAD workers came to be regularized. Thus, with effect from 1.1.1984, 2 separate category of posts being Sr. Technical Assistants and PAD workers came into existence. It is fortuitous for the petitioner that in February, 1982, he went into the cadre of Sr. Technical Assistants. Indeed, in February, 1982, petitioner benefited by being appointed as a Sr. Technical Assistant. It is equally true that had the petitioner continued as a PAD worker, e would have found seniority in the cadre of PAD workers with effect from a prior date but this cannot be helped in the facts and circumstances of the present case. These are the glaring uncertainties of every service. Ad-hoc/temporary cadre employees proceed to a regular cadre as the same gives them security of tenure. Their service in the regular cadre is reckoned from the date they are born on the cadre strength. The ad-hoc employees make representations seeking regularization and after a few year get regularized. They get their seniority with effect from the date of their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis.

17. Be that as it may, issue has to be decided on the basis of the recruitment rules aforesaid. Recruitment rules to the post of Assistant Director would reveal that Field Staff/ PAD Workers and Sr. Technical Assistants constitute feeder cadre. Petitioner has not challenged the recruitment rules. If the recruitment rules had simply provided that PAD workers and STAs are eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director without specifying any roster to be maintained, petitioner was justified that n integrated seniority list of PAD Workers and Sr. Technical Assistants had to be framed and thereafter promotions effected from out of the said list. Unfortunately, petitioner has ignored the fact that the recruitment rules prescribe a 40 point roster t be followed. As per the said roster, the 1st post is reserved for PAD worker, 2nd for Senior Technical Assistant, 3rd for direct recruits, 4th for a PAD worker, 5th for a Senior Technical Assistant, 6th for direct recruit, 7th for a PAD worker and 8th for a Senior Technical Assistant and so on up to 40 point. Thus, the occasion for integrating, in a common seniority list, the Senior Technical Assistants and PAD workers does not arise. 4 vacancies existed. 2 fell to the roster vacancies for PA workers and 2 fell to the roster vacancies of the Sr. Technical Assistants. As regards seniority of petitioner over respondent No.2, it be noted that in the panel prepared for appointment as STA, respondent No.2 was ranked higher in order of merit above petitioner and therefore had to rank senior to him.

18. I find nothing wrong in the action of the respondent.

19. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the standing finance committee of the respondent, on 8th May, 1987 resolved that injustice had been done to the petitioner and Sh. S.D. Singh. The committee had decided to create 2 supernumerary posts of Assistant Directors to accommodate the petitioner and said Sh. S.D. Singh. Counsel contended that the respondent, in the Executive Committee meeting held on 14.7.1987 deferred the proposal for creation of 2 supernumerary posts till the Director General examined the issue. Counsel contended that the respondent, itself accepted that injustice had been done to the petitioner.

20. No relief can be granted to the petitioner on the basis of the decision taken by the standing committee on finance and appointment committee because it remained at a proposal stage. I may note that the basis of the said decision is the alleged injustice caused to the petitioner. From a layman's point of view, injustice may have been caused to the petitioner, in that, had he remained as a PAD worker, he would have been senior to respondents 3 and 5. To a layman, it would certainly appear to be a care of injustice that persons who have joined later in an organization got promoted before persons who had joined the organization earlier. A layman would find it to be an unjust situation. However, issue has to be seen from the point of view of law. As noted above, petitioner came on the cadre of Senior Technical Assistant, a permanent post in February, 1982 and as a consequence thereof served his relation with the post of PAD Worker which was held by the petitioner on ad-hoc basis. Petitioner's seniority as a Senior Technical Assistant had to be reckoned in the cadre. Those who continued as PAD workers on ad-hoc basis came to be regularised on 1.1.1984. These persons found their seniority as PAD workers. The 2 posts being feeder posts to the post f Assistant Director and there being a roster point allocation, no legal injustice has been occasioned to the petitioner by what has happened.

21. The writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.