CHANDRA CHANGMAI vs THE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS

Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1-7 are represented by Mr. M.R. Adhikari,

the learned Govt. Advocate. The private respondent No.8, is however unrepresented during the hearing.

The challenge here is to the order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure-H), whereby, the LDA Satish Sarma was promoted to the post of UDA, in the

Inland Water Transport (IWT) Department. The petitioner relies upon the Office Memorandum (OM), dated 31.7.1975 (Annexure-J), to contend

that the appointment to the Grade-III vacancy should have been preceded by an advertisement and sponsoring of candidates by the Employment

Exchange. But in this case, the private respondent was promoted by disregarding the procedure prescribed in the O.M. dated 31.7.1975

(Annexure-J).

The petitioner was inducted as a Work Charge Khalasi on 17.2.1987 and while he was officiating as Accounts Assistant in the IWT

headquarter, his officiating service was regularized through the order dated 4.4.1994 (Annexure-C). The service of the Accounts Assistant was

then confirmed under the office order dated 10.3.1999. Subsequently however, in pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding drawn up against him, the

demotion of the petitioner to the District Level post of LDA was ordered on 27.9.2004 (Annexure-F).

Since at the relevant time, the petitioner and the respondent No.8 were both serving as LDA, the petitioner challenges the promotion of the

private respondent No.8, by specifically referring to the procedure laid down by the O.M. dated 31.7.1975 (Annexure-J).

However, the learned Govt. Advocate, Mr. M.R. Adhikari refers to the departmental counter affidavit filed on 4.2.2011, to project that the

petitioner was found guilty of the charge of forging the signature of the Director of the IWT and other senior officials and he was penalized by

reducing his rank to the District Level cadre of LDA and was posted at Goalpara. Thus, at the relevant time, the petitioner, unlike the respondent

No.8, was not serving in the Head Office cadre. Therefore, the impugned promotion of the LDA at the Head Quarter with his blemish free service

record, is contended to be as merited by the Govt. Advocate.

The O.M. dated 31.7.1975 (Annexure-J), lays down the procedure for direct recruitment and the same may have no application to promotion,

within the department. The requirement of advertisement of vacancy and sponsorship of candidates from the Employment Exchange, is foreign to

the promotion exercise for the post of UDA and therefore, I see no merit in the argument to the contrary, made by the petitioner''s lawyer.

The petitioner was charged with serious misconduct of forging the signature of his superiors and was demoted to the District Level cadre of

LDA, by shifting him from the IWT Head Quarter. Whereas at the relevant time, the respondent No.8 was serving as LDA, in the Head Quarter.

The counter affidavit filed on 2.6.2011 reflects that, the service of the respondent No.8 was regularized on 23.12.1999 and his service in the

permanent post of LDA was confirmed on 10.6.2009.

The service records of those in the zone of consideration are surely to be considered for the purpose of promotion and the petitioner having

been demoted on charge of grave misconduct, may be found wanting for promotion. Moreover, at the relevant time, the petitioner was demoted

and was shifted out of the Head Quarter, whereas the respondent No.8 had blemishless record and was serving at the Head Quarter and the

vacancy was also in the Head Office of the IWT.

When the O.M. dated 31.7.1975 (Annexure-J) clearly applies to direct recruitment and not to promotion, it would be illogical to entertain the

petitioner''s challenge to the promotion order, by referring to the inapplicable procedure specified in the O.M., relating to direct recruitment. That

apart, the petitioner was demoted on 27.9.2004, in pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding and was shifted out of the Head Quarter from the post of

Account Assistant and was posted as a District Level LDA. The service of the respondent No.8 was regularized and confirmed in the feeder post

of LDA and he was eligible in all respect for promotion to the UDA''s vacancy, in the Directorate of the IWT.

Following the above discussion, I see no reason to interfere with the order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure-H), whereby the respondent No.8

was promoted to the post of UDA. Thus this Writ Petition is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed, without any order on

cost.