AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. BN Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have mainly urged for direction on the respondents for quashing the order No. F.1(3-9)/HR/DHHS/2000/4886 dated 26.07.2012 [Annexure I to the writ petition] appointing the respondent No.4 to the post of Sericulture Development Officer, Group 'C' non-gazetted under the Directorate of Handloom, Handicraft and Sericulture, Government of Tripura on Fixed Pay in reference to the scale of pay of Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- (Pay Band-2) and analogous appointments made in favour of the other private respondents. It has been further urged that the petitioners be considered for promotion to the post of Sericulture Development Officer from the day when they have completed their Post Graduate Diploma Course in Sericulture with all consequential and financial benefits.
The essential facts as laid by the petitioners and the respondents by way of averments on records may be noted at the beginning. Undisputedly, both the petitioners were appointed to the post of Assistant Demonstrator (Sericulture). The petitioner No.1 was appointed on 29.10.1997 whereas the petitioner No.2 was appointed on 31.10.1997 in the said post. According to the petitioners, they have been discharging their duties and responsibilities to the entire satisfaction of the competent authority. In terms of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Sericulture Development Officer, 75% posts are to be filled up by promotion and 25% posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment. But, if for any reason by way of promotion, the available vacancies cannot be filled up, the promotion quota can be filled up by transfer on deputation and failing which by direct recruitment. The petitioners have asserted that according to the said Recruitment Rules which was published by the notification dated 08.06.1999 under No. F.DHHS/ESTT/4(25)/ 96/8321-370 (Annexure D to the writ petition) they are eligible inasmuch as they have the qualification to be promoted to the post of Sericulture Development Officer. Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules provides that promotion can be made from Demonstrator (Sericulture) having passed at least Certificate Course of Training in Sericulture from an Institute of the Central Silk Board/State Government failing which from the post of Junior Demonstrator (Sericulture) or Assistant Demonstrator (Sericulture) with minimum 10 years of total service in the grades having passed Certificate Course of Training in Sericulture from an Institute of Central Silk Board/State Government. The petitioners have averred that they have completed 10 (ten) years of service in the post of Assistant Demonstrator (Sericulture) and as such they have come within the zone of consideration against the promotion quota as per the Recruitment Rules. The petitioners have also asserted that in the year 1999, 14 persons were appointed as the Sericulture Development Officer on adhoc basis, but for absence of Recruitment Rules they were not regularized. Their appointments were also challenged by one Nihar Ranjan Dutta by filing a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 155 of 1998 and by the judgment and order dated 25.01.1999, the Gauhati High Court which had the jurisdiction to the subject matters arisen within the territory of Tripura held that all 56 posts in the grade of Extension Officer, Farm Manager etc. since were re-designated as Sericulture Development Officer in the identical scale of pay, the respondents shall carry out amendments in the Recruitment Rules keeping the provisions for the promotion from the feeder post. According to the petitioners, by the said judgment dated 25.01.1999, the respondents were directed for maintaining the quota of 75% for promotion and 25% for direct recruitment. Those adhoc appointees may be regularized in terms thereof. By the order dated 07.03.2012, the services of those 9(nine) adhoc appointees were regularized in the post of Sericulture Development Officer most erroneously, arbitrarily and violating the spirit of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court. The petitioners have also submitted that 2007 they were in the zone of consideration, but their case was never considered. However, on 19.07.2007 both the petitioners were selected for undergoing for the Post Graduate Diploma in Sericulture having the tenure of instruction for 15 months. As the sponsored candidates they completed the Post Graduate Diploma in Sericulture in the year 2008 from CSR and TI, Behrampur, West Bengal and they received the Certificate in the month of March, 2009.
There is no dispute that the petitioners made several representations to the competent authority for considering their promotion to the post of Sericulture Development officer, but no tangible result has yielded. On the contrary, the respondent No.3 by the communication dated 12.02.2009 under No. F.1(38- 5)/HR/DHHS/2000/15,970 (Annexure E to the writ petition) has apprised that the petitioner No.2 could not be considered as he has not come under the zone of consideration for promotion according to his seniority. Thereafter, the petitioners No. 1 and 2 served a legal notice upon the respondents on 10.04.2012 (Annexure G to the writ petition) seeking the similar relief to attend their legitimate expectation, but no action whatsoever came forth in favour of the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the reliefs, as stated above.
The respondents by filing their reply have stated that there is no intention to deprive the petitioners from their promotion to the post of Sericulture Development Officer. Out of 56 posts as referred by the petitioners, 42 posts of Extension Officer (Sericulture) in the scale of pay of Rs.1450-3710 were re- designated as Sericulture Development Officer in the same scale of pay and that cannot be held pre-judicial to the petitioners for any reason. The respondents have admitted that they have regularized 9(nine) adhoc appointees in terms of the order dated 07.03.2012 passed by the Gauhati High Court. In paragraph 17 of the reply, the respondents have disclosed that the petitioners' position in the seniority was at serial No. 41 as the officiating capacity of the Assistant Demonstrator (Sericulture) since 2007. The seniority list in the grade of Demonstrator (Sericulture)/Junior Demonstrator (Sericulture)/ Assistant Demonstrator (Sericulture) as on 30.03.2005 was published by the memorandum dated 19.12.2005. On completion of 17 years of service, the petitioner was granted the pay scale for the Demonstrator (Sericulture) w.e.f. 30.10.2014. According to the respondents, the petitioners were considered for the post of Junior Demonstrator (Sericulture) on completion of 10(ten) years of service by according financial benefits w.e.f. 30.10.2007. The grades are as under:
No.
Grade of Designation
i
Asstt. Demo. (Seri.)
Initial appointment to the post
ii
Junior Demonstrator (Seri.)
On completion of 10 years service in the post of
Demonstrator (Seri.)
iii
Demonstrator (Seri.)
After completion of 17 years of
total service
The respondents have further submitted that the petitioner's turn has not come as yet to be considered for promotion to the post of the Sericulture Development Officer inasmuch as the petitioners have not completed 10 years of service in the post of Junior Demonstrator (Sericulture) at the time of filing the writ petition. They would complete 17 years of service sometime in 2014. The respondents have admitted that the petitioners have completed the Post Graduate Diploma in Sericulture from a recognized Institute and in this regard, the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's qualification. The respondents have also placed the order dated 07.06.2012 whereby 9(nine) adhoc appointees were adjusted against the direct recruitment quota and having said that the respondents have further contended that since the adhoc appointees were appointed against the direct recruit quota, the petitioners cannot have any legitimate grievance. At the same time there cannot be any prejudice to the petitioners in any manner.
It appears that the writ petition is quite misconceived. It is evident from Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules that first from the post of Demonstrator (Sericulture) having the Certificate of Training, the eligible persons will be considered for promotion to the post of Sericulture Development Officer against 75% Quota, failing which the other post of Junior Demonstrator (Sericulture) and Assistant Demonstrator (Sericulture) with minimum 10(ten) years of total service with the Certificate, as noted may be considered. Therefore, primarily the feeder post is the post of Demonstrator (Sericulture). When the writ petition was filed, the petitioners were not borne in the said post of Demonstrator. They were holding the post of Junior Demonstrator (Sericulture). Therefore, at the relevant point of time they had no cause to file this writ petition.
Having held so, this court could have dismissed the writ petition, but it is an admitted position that in 2014 the petitioners have been appointed as Demonstrator for their completion of 17(seventeen) years of service and now they are in the feeder post, but this court does not know the number of vacancies available in the post under the promotion quota, nor the seniority position of the petitioners. Hence, the respondents are directed to take up an exercise to find out the vacancies available under the promotion quota in terms of the Recruitment Rules and to create a zone of consideration in terms of the seniority. If it is found that the petitioners are within the zone of consideration, there case shall be considered with expedition. The entire exercise may be completed within a period of 6(six) months from the date when the petitioners shall submit a copy of this order to the respondent No.3 in particular.
So far the challenge against the order dated 07.03.2012 (Annexure R-1 to the reply filed by the respondents No. 1,2 and 3) standing is concerned this court is of the view that the petitioners do not have to challenge the said order as those appointments were made under the direct recruit quota in terms of the Recruitment Rules.
Having observed thus, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.