PRITHVI RAJ SANGRA AND ORS vs STATE OF Jammu & Kashmir AND ORS

(III) (A),75-150,Sanitary Inspector,"Matric with science & a

year course under the State

medical faulty or equivalent

qualification recognized by

the Government.","Direct

Recruitment

(A),(Grade),"Sanitary

Inspectors","Matric with science

and one year course

under the State

medical faculty or

equivalent

qualification

recognized by the

Government","i) 50% by direct

recruitmentÂ

ii) 50% by promotion from

Class VI category.

A) Provided they are matriculates

with science and one year‟s

course of Sanitary Inspectors

under the State Medical faculty or

equivalent qualification recognized

by the Government.Â

Â

(Prithvi Raj Sangra and ors. v. State of J&K and ors.),,,,

In this petition, the petitioners challenge the orders by virtue of which respondents No. 3 to 5 were first made as I/c Assistant Sanitation Officers",,,,

and thereafter, without confirming them as I/c Assistant Sanitation Officers on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, are",,,,

further being placed as I/c Executive Officers.Â,,,,

Orders have been challenged primarily on the ground that the petitioners were seniors to respondents No. 3 to 5. It is stated that the petitioners,,,,

No. 1 to 3 came to be appointed as Sanitary Inspector on 15.06.1987, 23.10.1987 and 22.04.1988 respectively. It is stated that so far as petitioner No.",,,,

4 is concerned, he came to be appointed as Sanitary Supervisor on 09.10.1987 and after acquiring the qualification of diploma in Sanitary Inspector in",,,,

the year, 1985, he was promoted as Sanitary Inspector on 18.01.1991.Â",,,,

Respondents No. 3 to 5 are stated to be junior to the petitioners with reference to their date of qualifying the Sanitary Inspector‟s course on,,,,

19.09.1991, 01.04.1995 and 26.10.1998 respectively. Reliance in this regard is placed on seniority list dated 31.08.2011.Â",,,,

However, in view of the view taken in Vinod Kumar‟s case (supra), where the petitioner therein has been held to be entitled to seniority w.e.f. the",,,,

date of his initial appointment i.e. 17.04.1985 and not from the date of his qualifying Sanitation Inspector‟s Course, the plea of the respondents that",,,,

they were rightly ignored for placement as I/c Assistant Sanitation Officers or for that matter I/c Executive Officers is a plea which is untenable.Â,,,,

Respondents shall, therefore, consider the petitioners with due regard to their seniority to be framed on the principle of Vinod Kumar‟s case",,,,

(supra) for promotion to the post of Assistant Sanitation Officers and Executive Officers strictly in accordance with the rules keeping in view their,,,,

merit and seniority.,,,,

Disposed of along with connected MP(s) accordingly.,,,,

SWP Nos. 1603/2006 and 2198/2013Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â,,,,

(Mohd. Ashan v. State of J&K and ors.),,,,

Petitioner came to be appointed as a Sanitary Inspector by virtue of order dated 15.10.1984 issued by the Addl. Secretary to Government, Civil",,,,

Secretariat, Housing and Urban Development Department, Local Self Government. His name was reflected in the tentative seniority list dated",,,,

30.07.2001 at Serial No. 1, but in the second tentative seniority list dated 26.10.2010, the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 21.",,,,

Objections were called, pursuant to which, a final seniority list dated 16.09.2011 was issued showing the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 21.Â",,,,

Petitioner challenges the seniority list, so issued and seeks his due placement in the said seniority list qua respondent No. 3 to 20. The case of the",,,,

petitioner is that he was appointed earlier in point of time than the private respondents and, therefore, his seniority ought to have been framed in",,,,

accordance with the date of his first appointment i.e. 15.10.1984.Â,,,,

In SWP No.1603/2006, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to place him in the grade of",,,,

Rs.1760-3200 subsequently revised to Rs.5700-10100 as Sanitary Inspector from the date of his appointment i.e. 15.10.1984.,,,,

It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Inspector on 15.10.1984, whereas the private respondents No. 3 to 8 were appointed as",,,,

Sanitary Inspectors much thereafter.Â,,,,

The stand taken by the respondents in ignoring the petitioner for promotion is same as was taken in Vinod Kumar‟s case (supra). It was stated,,,,

that all the respondents were placed in the upgraded pay scales earlier in point of time as they were qualified Sanitary Inspectors at the time of their,,,,

initial appointment as against the petitioner who had qualified the Sanitary Inspector‟s course only in October, 1996.Â",,,,

In view of the view taken in the Vinod Kumar‟s case, both these petitions are allowed. Respondents shall reframe the seniority list by reflecting",,,,

the petitioner at an appropriate place keeping in view his date of appointment i.e. 15.10.1984. Petitioner is also held entitled to be placed in the,,,,

upgraded pay scales of Rs. 1700-3200 revised to 5700-10100 w.e.f. date the private respondents were so placed. He shall also be considered for,,,,

promotion w.e.f. the date his juniors were so promoted. Â,,,,

Disposed of accordingly along with connected MP(s).,,,,