Mohammad Ramzan Rather vs State & Ors.

Petitioner was engaged as daily wager in the year 1971 and was brought on regular temporary establishment as Jr. Operator in the year 1980

with effect from 01.12.1979. At the time of filing of writ petition the petitioner was placed in a pay scale of Rs.12002040. Petitioner's claim for

appointment by way of promotion to the next higher post having not been considered, felt aggrieved by the said inaction of the official respondents.

Petitioner also felt aggrieved of the promotion given to respondent No.5 as Dumper Operator in the grade of Rs.16002600. The claim of the

petitioner is that respondent No.5 is junior to him.

In the writ petition it is not pleaded how respondent No.5 is junior to the petitioner. Neither any seniority list has been placed on record of the

writ petition to show that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.5 nor it is shown that the petitioner and respondent No.5 belong to same

class/category of service. From the official communications placed on the record as Anenxures A and B, it appears that the recommendations

were made in favour of respondent No.5 as he was found to be only matriculate and ITI trained, for his placement/appointment to the next higher

grade. Executive Engineer, Mechanical Lock Division, NLP Baramulla wrote a communication in July 1996 requested the Chief Engineer,

KCC/PDC/Bemina, Srinagar that the post in the next higher grade is not available in his Division. The request was made that respondent No. 5's

case for promotion may be considered.

Respondent No.5 was ordered to be temporarily promoted on the post of Dumper Operator vide Order dated 31.10.1997.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the matter.

AnnexureA of the writ petition shows that the petitioner is appointee of 1971 as Jr. Operator, when as a matter of fact, as admitted by the

petitioner in his writ petition, he was engaged as daily wager in 1971 and thereafter Jr. Operator in the year 1980 w.e.f 01.12.1979.

From the writ petition it is not clear as to whether the petitioner or respondent No.5 belong to same class/category of service. Petitioner can be

said to be aggrieved in law if it is shown and found that he and respondent No.5 belong to same class/category of service. Since writ petition is

bereft of all the factual details, it will not be appropriate to return any category finding in this writ petition. The respondent No.5 is given promotion

being only matriculate and III trained, which may be requirement of rule, which the petitioner is lacking.

This petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the direction to the official respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for being promoted

to the next higher grade and incase it is found that the petitioner and respondent No.5 belong to same class/category of service and respondent

No.5 is junior to the petitioner then the petitioner shall be considered for grant of promotion to higher grade if he possess requisite eligibilities,

which has been given to respondent No.5 from 31st of October, 1997. In case it is found that the petitioner and respondent No.5 do not belong to

one class/category of service then the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief on the analogy of respondent no.5. The official respondents, in such

eventuality, are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to next higher grade in accordance with the rules occupying the field.

Disposed of accordingly.