AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
The petitioner herein, is, aggrieved by the impugned order, of, 13.11.2013, whereunder, the contesting respondents, hence, promoted respondent
No.5, to the promotional post, of, Junior Engineer. The grievance reared by the petitioner, is, squarely grooved, in, the factum of the apposite seniority
list, carrying, depictions of respondent No.5 being senior to the petitioner, being false and erroneous, inasmuch, (i) the initial appointment of the
petitioner occurring in the year 1994, (ii) whereas, the initial appointment of respondent No.5, occurring, on 24.06.1995; (iii) AND, with respondent
No.5 rendering employment under the respondents w.e.f. 24.06.1995 upto 1996, and, thereafter his standing reengaged, in, the year 1998. (iv) The
services of the petitioner being regularized, on 1.4.1998, (v) whereas, the services of respondent No.5 being regularised w.e.f. 1.1.2002. The apposite
seniority list, is, borne in Anexure P-5. Since, both, the petitioner, and, respondent No.5., constituted, the purported apposite feeder category, of,
surveyors, for theirs hence being considered, for promotion, to the promotional post of J.E., carried in, the establishment of the respondents, thereupon,
it is imperative, to, mete an appropriate adjudication, vis-a-vis, the aforesaid espousal reared before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing, for
the petitioner.
In setting at rest, the aforesaid contention, as, addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing, for the petitioner, it is appropriate, to
allude to the reply thereto meted, by respondents No.1 to 4. In, the preliminary submissions meted by respondents No.1 to 4, vis-a-vis, the aforesaid
averments, cast in the writ petition, (a) a forthright contention is reared, of the petitioner being engaged, as an extra labourer along with other daily
waged person, during December, 1994, (b) and his from December, 1994 upto 31.12.1999, hence serving, as, a labourer in different capacities, like, as
Beldar, Mason, Carpenter and Supervisor.
Muster roll in respect thereof, are appended therewith, as Annexure R-2 to R-6. Apparently, hence, the initial appointment, of, the petitioner was
never, in the capacity, of, a Surveyor. Contrarily, the initial appointment or engagement, of respondent No.5, by the contesting respondent, was visibly
as a draftsman, and, engagement whereof, rather occurred, in, the Month of July, 1995, under, an appointment letter issued, in the month of July, 1995,
letter whereof is appended as Annexure R-3, with, the amended reply furnished, to, the amended writ petition. Furthermore, respondent No.5, while,
serving, as, a draftsman, under respondents No.1 to 4, he, also as displayed, by Annexure R-4 to R-6, held the additional charge, of, Junior Engineer.
The effect of the aforesaid unrebutted averments, set forth, in the reply meted, by, respondents No.1 to 4, to the apposite therewith aforesaid
averments cast in the writ petition, obviously also undermine the vigour of the contention, of the petitioner, of, his since the day of his engagement, in
the year 1994, by respondents No.1 to 4, his being reckonable, as senior to respondent No.5, given, the latter being subsequently, engaged, in the year
1995.
Furthermore, the learned counsel appearing, for the petitioner has contended with vigour (a) that even otherwise, with the services of the petitioner
being regularized, against, the post, of, a surveyor in the year 1998, (b) whereas, the services of respondent No.5 being, subsequent thereto on
1.1.2002, hence regularized against the post, of, a draftsman, thereupon, on anvil of Annexure R-1, carrying the aforesaid erroneous depictions, he
contends, that the petitioner, has a right superior, to respondent No.5, for his being considered, for promotion to the post of J.E. However, in making
the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel, for the petitioner, has, not borne in mind the apposite portrayals, occurring in the apposite R&P Rules,
comprised in Annexure R-5/14, (c) whereunder, a prescription is borne of promotion, to the promotional post, of, Junior Engineer being permissible to
be singularly made, from, the apposite feeder category, comprising only of draftsman. Since, the displays occurring in Anexure R-5/14, hold their clout,
at the time contemporaneous, to the promotional post of J.E., hence falling vacant, thereupon, the mandate thereof, is, required to be applied, vis-a-vis,
the respective candidatures, of, respondent No.5, and, of the petitioner. Since, respondent No.5, fell in the apposite contemplated feeder category of
draftsman, whereas, apparently the petitioner did not fall in the apposite, in, vogue thereat, hence feeder category, of draftsman, rather when he fell in
the category, of, surveyor, (d) hence, the mere factum of the petitioner, being reqularised, in the category of surveyor, prior, to the regularization, of,
respondent No.5, in, the category, of, draftsman, is, insignificant, as the category of surveyor, whereagainst, the petitioner was regularised, prior to the
regularization, of, respondent No.5, in the apposite category, of, draftsman, is, irrelevant, vis-a-vis, his aspiring for the promotional post, nor hence
enables the petitioner, to, aspire to compete alongwith respondent No.5, for his being considered, for, promotion to the promotional post, of, Junior
Engineer.
Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged the regularization, of respondent No.5, as, a draftsman nor also he has made any challenge qua the initial
appointment, of respondent No.5, as, a draftsman. The petitioner has failed to place on record any material, to, erode the efficacy, of, Annexure R-3,
Annexure whereof, is, the appointment letter issued, to respondent No.5, carrying displays therein qua respondent No.5, standing, appointed as a
draftsman, on a contractual basis, AND, even dehors any casting, of, any valid challenge thereto, the same is irrelevant, given, the petitioner not falling
in the apposite feeder category, appertaining to the promotional post.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition and it is dismissed accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No
costs.