AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Sr. counsel on behalf of the petitioner Mr. TT Diengdoh assisted by Mr. K.Barua as well as learned State counsel on behalf of
the State respondents, Mr. KP Bhattacharjee assisted by Mr. F.Marbaniang, Addl. Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads).
The petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for promotion of the Petitioner to the post of U.D. Assistant to which she had
been denied and her junior had been promoted to U.D.A.
The brief fact of the case is that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Work-Charge Tracer vide office Order dated 20.05.1986. She was
regularized in the post of Tracer vide office Order dated 20.09.1999 and Office Order dated 07.01.2000.
Thereafter, vide office Order dated 13th December, 2002, Respondent No.5, the Petitioner along with other staff were posted as LDA cum
Typist in the Office of the Respondent No. 7. The Petitioner did not question the change from the post of Tracer to an LDA as the qualification for
both the post are the same. The Petitioner was confirmed against the vacant sanctioned post w.e.f. 25th April, 2012.
That Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 4th October, 2013 directed the Respondent No. 4 that the matter of appointment/promotion from Tracer
to L.D.Assistant was examined in depth by the Department and observed that the appointment/promotion of L.D. Assistant and promotion to
U.D. Assistant for Tracer is not in line and is a violation to Meghalaya Engineer (PWD) Subordinate Service Rules and Meghalaya Directorate
(Ministerial) Service Rules; as such to adhere strictly to the Government rules/instructions regarding appointment/promotion of Tracer to L.D.
Assistant as the post of Tracer is not in the same line with L.D. Assistant.
Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 vide letter No.PW/CE/ESTT/149/2013/5 dated 6th December, 2013 directed the Respondent No. 6 to submit
a list of all cases with such irregularities giving full details for further scrutiny and consideration of the incumbent appointed in the post of Tracer
who have been promoted/absorbed/regularized as LDA. The Respondent No.4 also requested to ensure that such instances are not repeated in
future and that all appointment/promotion/regularization are done through proper channels only in strict compliance to Government Rules and
Regulations. In spite of it, Respondent No.8 who is junior to the Petitioner was promoted to the post of UDA instead of the Petitioner.
The information received through Right to Information Act will go to show that the Act, mentioned are still at the draft stage as such the Petitioner
should not have been denied from being promoted to the post of UDA.
The Petitioner had approached the Respondents for redressal of the genuine grievances but none of the authorities had replied nor intimated to her.
As such the action of the Respondents has compelled the Petitioner to approach this Hon''ble Court for invoking its power under Article as well as
Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, the humble Petitioner has approached this Hon''ble Court as there is no other alternative and/or
efficacious remedy open to the Petitioner and the relief sought for shall be just, adequate and complete if granted. Hence, this instant writ petition.
Learned Sr. counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner initially joined service in the year 1986 as Work-charge Tracer and
thereafter was promoted to the post of LDA in the year 2002 and now the department wants to revert her back to her original post on the ground
that a Work-charge Tracer cannot be an LDA. Learned Sr. counsel also brought to the notice of this Court to Annexure-24 at Sl.No. 5 wherein it
appears that around 12 Nos. of Work-charge Tracer had been promoted to the post of LDA in some Divisions/Subordinate Offices. Therefore,
learned Sr. counsel raised the question why such discrimination was followed in the case of the petitioner.
In reply, learned State counsel produced a Rule of 2010 called ''The Meghalaya Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rule, 2010''
and pointed out to Rule 9 of the said Rule. After Perusal of the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner joined service in the year 1986 and had
been promoted to the post of LDA in the year 2002 and the said Rule referred to above had been adopted only in the year 2010. Therefore the
question does not arise that the said Rule of 2010 shall apply in the case of the petitioner because no rule or law can take retrospective effect.
Besides that, it is a fact from the record and submission of the learned counsels that petitioner has not obtained the promotion by any other
means or by manipulation. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the respondents are trying to treat the petitioner in an irregular manner
which cannot be allowed. It is therefore directed that petitioner shall continue in her present post and respondents will not disturb her in any
manner. Rather respondents are further directed that if there is any scope of vacancy available, petitioner shall be promoted to the next post i.e.
UDA as from Annexure-12 it appears that a Chowkidar had been promoted to the post of UDA.
With this observation and direction, petition is allowed and stands disposed of. Personal appearance of Mr. F. Marbaniang, Addl. Chief
Engineer, PWD (Roads) is hereby dispensed.