AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed on the following prayers:
(i) That the appointment and promotion of Respondent No. 2 made for extraneous consideration ignoring the Rules and Regulations, merit, suitability and seniority may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) Annexure A-4 being illegal and made without following the Rules and Regulations may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(iii) That the promotion to the post of Assistant Manager in future may kindly be ordered to be made as per Rules and Regulations framed by the Respondent-Corporation.
In reply, Respondent No. 1 has taken the following stand vide para 6(iii)
In reply to this sub para of the OA it is admitted that the Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Guide in June, 1991. It may also be clarified here that under the revised pattern of pay scales applicable from 1.1.86, in the category of Guides/Conductors to which category the applicants and Respondents No. 2 belongs, 40% posts are placed in the senior scale of Rs. 1200-2130 after completion of 5 years of service and designated as Sr. Guides/Conductors. Further, 40% posts are placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640 after completion of ten years of service and designated as Jr. Assistant. Irrespective of the above time scales and designations given on percentage basis after 5 or 10 years of service, all of them belong to a single cadre/category of guide/Conductors for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200. Under the R&P Rules the eligibility for promotion to the post of Asstt. Manager (Transport) is from the Guides/Conductors with five year service on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. On the basis of a DPC held on 30.5.96 four persons were promoted as Asstt. Managers (Transport) from the general category. One post which was reserved for Schedule Tribe candidates was carried forward as the only person belonging to the Schedule Tribe category i.e. Respondent No. 2 was not eligible on 30.5.96. The Respondent No. 2 who belongs to S.T. category and was at Sr. No. 12 in the seniority list of Guides/Conductors became eligible for promotion after completion of five years of service on 1.6.96. Thus the Respondent No. 2 would have been promoted against the post reserved fro S.T. category had the DPC met on 1.6.96 instead 30.5.96. On the face of these facts, the injustice had been caused to the Respondent No. 2. In order to dispense justice to the Respondent No. 2, his case for promotion to the post of Asstt. Manager (Transport) against the one higher vacant post of Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 was considered in March, 1997 and the Respondent No. 2 was promoted as Asstt. Manager (Transport) on adhoc basis on 14.3.97. The various grounds raised in this para of the OA are not maintainable for the facts and reasons submitted in this reply.
Respondent No. 2 has not filed any independent reply and has instead adopted the reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1.
Vide order dated 8.12.2010, the Petitioners were permitted to bring on record certain documents obtained by them under the Right to Information Act.
In compliance of order dated 14.12.2010, the Managing Director of Respondent No. 1-Corporation, has filed supplementary affidavit, dated 26.2.2011, paras 1 and 2 whereof are as under:
That the roster annexed with Annexure A-3 indicating that No. post is reserved for Schedule Tribe category is wrongly prepared and not signed by the competent authority. Hence, the same should be ignored as there is clerical error in the roster of register.
That there was in fact a back log of Schedule Tribe category in the cadre of Asstt. Manager (Transport) against which the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Sh. Roop Lal was appointed.
The challenge in this petition is against ad hoc promotion to the post of Asstt. Manager (Transport), granted to Respondent No. 2 vide Office Order dated 14.3.1997, Annexure A-4. Such promotion was soon thereafter challenged by the Petitioner before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A No. 348 of 1998, which on abolition of the said Tribunal has been transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T) No. 4943 of 2008.
There is no denying the fact that the ad hoc promotion of Respondent No. 2 is per se a stop gap arrangement. However, the same is continuing for the last more than 11 years. There is serious challenge to the entitlement of Respondent No. 2 for such promotion on various grounds inter alia amongst others that at the time of joining service of the Respondent-Corporation he had not disclosed that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe.
Be that as it may, it is really disturbing that the ad hoc promotion which is a stop gap arrangement is continuing for such a long time. Such situation cannot be allowed to persist any further.
In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 1 that subject to the Petitioners making detailed representation(s) supported by documents along with copy of this judgment to the said Respondent within one month from today, who shall consider and decide the same within further one month in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners as also to Respondent No. 2, if so desired and thereafter initiate the process for filling up the post on regular basis without any further delay and take the same to its logical conclusion within further three months in accordance with law. It goes without saying that during the regular process for promotion all those officials who are eligible and fall within the zone of consideration shall be considered strictly in accordance with the roster, if any.
In view of disposal of the main petition, pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.