JAi RAM SHARMA
A
v.
JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
APRIL 19, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY MTI G.B. PATTANAIK, .TJ.]
B
SC1vice Law :
Promotion-Public Relations Office1--Employee on deputation
promoted to the post-Regular employee belonging to the se1vice not C
promoted-Held, regular employee from the Se1vice had a legitimate 1ight to
be considered-Directed that he should be considered to have been regularly
promoted from the date the dcputationist was promoted-His entitlemeltt to
be considered within three months.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7750 of D
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.2.95 of the Jammu &
Kashmir High Court in L.P.A (SWP) No. 77 of 1990.
R.C. Pathak for the Appellants.
E
Ashok Mathur for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
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
F
No. 77 of 1990. The admitted position is that while the respondent No. 5, G
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 deputationist was con-
sidered and promoted. The appellant challenged the said action by way of
writ petition which was not properly considered by the Division Bench. H
603
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
When the Matter had come up for admission, this Court on August 21,
1995 had passed the following order :
B
c
D
E
F
G
"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 the Single Judge has given
the direction Correctly, the Division Bench was not right in upset-
ting 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 respon-
dent.''
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.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
Lex