PETITIONER:
JAI RAM SHARMA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/04/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (5) 369 1996 SCALE (4)449
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated February 10, 1995 of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in LPA No.77 of 1990. The admitted position is that while the respondent NO.5, P.N. Jalla, was on deputation as senior Steno, the appellant was appointed on regular basis as Office Superintendent. For the post of Public Relations Officer, he is required to be considered for promotion on regular basis. Instead of promoting him on regular basis, the deputation is was considered and promoted. The appellant challenged the said action by way of writ petition which was not properly considered be the Division Bench. When the matter had come up for. admission, this Court on August 21, 1995 had passed the following order;
"Counsel for the petitioner says
that the petitioner does not
require payment of back-wages but
his due seniority is to be
considered according to rules. The
3rd respondent was only a senior
stenographer from Govt. service and
was on deputation. While the
petitioner is a regular employee
and is entitled to be considered,
when the vacancy of Public
Relations Officer had arisen, he
was not considered, Since he Single
Judge has given the direction
correctly, the Division Bench was
not right in upsetting that order
from the date on which he was due
to be considered. In view of the
fact that he is not claiming any
arrears and the 5th respondent has
retired from service, notice is
issued to the State as to why the
petitioner’s seniority should not
be taken from the date when the
vacancy as P.R.O. had arisen and he
was due for consideration but was
not considered along with the 5th
respondent".
Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent contending that appellant’s seniority was considered with effect from the date when the vacancy had arisen after the retirement of the 5th respondent. The above action is obviously illegal and an arm twist to nepotism. When the appellant was a regular candidate as Office Superintendent, he was entitled to be considered in preference to the deputationist, who is not a member of the service as on that date. He was wrongly denied of his legitimate right to be considered for appointment on the date when the 5th respondent was appointed. It is, therefore, directed that the appellant must be considered to have been regularly appointed with effect from the date on which the 5th respondent was promoted as P.R.O. and in terms of the order passed by this Court. His entitlement would be considered according to the rules within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the order.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.