JUDGMENT : N.H. Bhatt, J. This matter is being taken up under the directions of the Supreme Court to which the matter had been carried against the mandatory interim order passed by learned brother P. D Desai, J. in this petition. 2. The facta of this case are peculiar and uncommon. The petitioner it an employee of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "O.N.G.C." for brevity sake). The petitioner who had joined the O.N.G.C. on 18th August, 1958 as a mechanic had come to be promoted in February 1967, by rising successively, to the post of a Chargeman (General Mechanical) In December, 1976 the petitioner was selected for deputation to Tanzania for working on the Rigs for drilling. He returned to India in August 1977. On his return, he was reallocated to Ahmedabad Project and was posted in a section known as Drilling Tools Yard Section, since 7-11-77. However, time and again, he was asked to work at the drilling sites on rigs which work he had been doing prior to his going to Tanzania. As he was of and on doing the work which he had done in the post almost uninterruptedly, he thus smouldering under some so-called humiliating treatment raised his voice for the first time against his assignment of the duties in D. T. Y. S., which is when amplified is known as Drilling Tools Yard Section. The petitioner felt that there was absolutely no work for him there at D. T. Y. S. except signing the muster roll, waiting there and drawing the salary. He felt then that he was being side-tracked in this fashion only because he was the Chairman of the Technical Workers' Association, of course, an unrecognised Union but registered under the Trade Unions Act. He, therefore, started making representations in January 1980 and went on sending representations after representations which are Annexure ('A' 'B' 'C' and 'D'V Getting no reply to his said representation, he by his letter dated 10-3-1980 informed the respondents officers of the O.N.G.C. that he would not draw his salary from the O.N.G.C. as he was not provided with any work. This also fell on deaf ears and he, therefore, filed the present petition claiming the following reliefs : - 1. This also fell on deaf ears and he, therefore, filed the present petition claiming the following reliefs : - 1. To issue necessary writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to assign the duties to the petitioner in drilling Section on Rig in field work ; and 2. To grant any other reliefs deemed just, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case. The petition was very stoutly contested on behalf of the O.N.G.C. and the affidavit-in-reply of the Senior Drilling Engineer, the Head of the Section, was filed inter alia contending that the post of a Chargeman (General Mechanical) was not in any way deviating from the assigning duties to the petitioner at D. T. Y. S. and that the Chargeman of this category of General Mechanical were not necessarily working on rigs but they were working in mechanical workshops, productions, in drilling branch on rigs, with field maintenance party and they were also required to work in Construction and Maintenance Branch. It was denied that the petitioner was kept at D. T. Y. S. out of any vengeance or ill feeling. It was then asserted as follows : "I say that there is no legal rule, regulation or legal right of the petitioner by which he is required to be given a permanent posting on any rigs, as is being contended by the petitioner in this paragraph. I say that technical work is required to be performed in D. T. Y. S also...T say that the Commission is entitled to put a Chargeman at D.T .Y. S in commission's interest. I deny that there is no work or duties in D. T. Y S. which a Chargeman can discharge...I say that there are important mechanical jobs to be done at D. T. Y. S. which is the feeding line and field installation of drilling division.. I say that the petitioner's apprehension that because he is working in D. T. Y. S. his chance of future promotion will be affected is not true." 3. The affidavit-in-reply was followed by the affidavit-in-rejoinder which in its term was again followed by the affidavit-in-surrejoinder by the very Senior Drilling Engineer Mr. P. M. Rao. 4. The following facts clearly emerge from various statements made in the affidavits :- 1. The affidavit-in-reply was followed by the affidavit-in-rejoinder which in its term was again followed by the affidavit-in-surrejoinder by the very Senior Drilling Engineer Mr. P. M. Rao. 4. The following facts clearly emerge from various statements made in the affidavits :- 1. In the Drilling Section on an average 55 Chargemen of General Mechanical cadre are working in Ahmedabad Project (this statement was made by Mr. Mehta for the respondents after collecting information from the officers of the O. N. G.O). 2. No such chargeman of General Mechanical Division was ever posted in recent years in D. T. Y. S. except the petitioner and one M. A Ansari, a chargeman who was junior to the petitioner, the period of whose working at this place could not be stated by Mr. Mehta. But the petitioner has stated at the Bar that it was only for 15 days that Mr. Ansari worked at this place prior to proceeding to Tanzania. It is, therefore, reasonable to hold that the petitioner's appointment in D. T. Y. S. is the first of its kind in recent years and possibly no chargeman prior thereto was posted there. Had there been any such posting, the Commission (O. N. G C) which was called upon by the petitioner by his affidavit-in-rejoinder to furnish the information could have certainly come forthwith any such data I, therefore, have drawn this inference by resorting to section 11-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which has apart from the applicability of the Indian Evidence Act, is a matter of genera] proposition of law and common sense, 3. The say the petitioner that a chargeman (General Mechanical) at D T. Y. S. has simply to while away his time and idle himself does not appear to be true. As stated in the affidavit-in-reply, as many as 8 items of work are there. They are as follows : 1. Servicing of handling tools required for casting, drill pipes; collars ; 2. Casting testing prior to dispatch to drilling sites; 3. Modification of the drilling tool is and dishing tools; 4. Fabrication of structure items required at drill sites; 5 High pressure value servicing; 6. Maintenance of well head equipment prior to dispatch to drill site; 7. Maintenance of Core Barrel and their handling tools; and 8. Movement of tubulars 5. In order to understand what these items were, I sought the assistance of Mr. Fabrication of structure items required at drill sites; 5 High pressure value servicing; 6. Maintenance of well head equipment prior to dispatch to drill site; 7. Maintenance of Core Barrel and their handling tools; and 8. Movement of tubulars 5. In order to understand what these items were, I sought the assistance of Mr. Mehta who in his turn was good enough to keep a senior driller for explaining the same. 6. Even as a lay-man, I find that above are only matters more of maintenance than of working on machines. The petitioner's statement in the petition in this regard was as follows : - "I state that the Chargeman (Mechanical) are required to look after the oil engines, mudpumps, compressors, draworks, mechanically operated equipments". This particular matter was not wholly controverted by the respondents, but what was reiterated was that Chargeman would be required to perform the duties mentioned in para 5 of the affidavit-in-reply. In para 5 of the affidavit-in reply the very functions mentioned above are set out, but it is not denied that the Chargeman generally operated the machines set out by tie petitioner in his affidavit-in-rejoinder at page 3 para 7. It is, therefore, evident that chargeman by and large attended to the machines and as their designation shows they are mechanical chargeman I, therefore, believe the say of the O N Q. C that such chargeman though not confined to drilling operations at the drilling sites are working in production branch, workshops etc but at the same time I am not inclined to believe the say of the commission that the work at the D.T. Y. S. is the work though allied to some extent is the work of a Chargeman (general mechanical). 7. The right of the Administration of the O. N. G. C to assign one or the other duties which can be performed by chargeman is conceded to even by Mr. Naik and, therefore, it is held that the administration of the O.N.G.C. is competent to assign any duties to chargemen (general 1 mechanical) which are normally being performed by the people in that cadre. 8. Naik and, therefore, it is held that the administration of the O.N.G.C. is competent to assign any duties to chargemen (general 1 mechanical) which are normally being performed by the people in that cadre. 8. As a corollary which is inevitable of what has been found above, I find that the petitioner's case is a solitary case of his having been assigned duties as D.T.Y.S. without there being showing any normal decision of the O.N.G.C to post Chargemen (general mechanical) at D.T.Y. S. If the O. N. G. C. takes a decision that a Chargeman (general mechanical) is also required to be kept at D. T. Y. S. for carrying out the various functions which would ordinarily be required to be done by such a man then the Administration of the O N. G. C would be within its right to do so, but as the things stand at present, the petitioner seems to have been singled out for this particular treatment. I say that he has been discriminated against because, as held by me above, at no time in the past a Chargeman (general mechanical) was posted in D T. Y. S and secondly because he, comparatively a senior chargeman is kept to this particular section when various persons even far too junior to him are allowed to work in different assignments which could be handled by Chargeman (general mechanical). So it appears that the petitioner's grievance is justified in complaining of discrimination in the matter of employment attracting Article 16 of the Constitution of India. I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to claim his posting at the rigs as has been done by him, but he has made out a case for his being not posted at D.T.Y.S. in the facts a id circumstances of the case as they are available to-day. If the O.N. G. C. takes a decision, a formal one, to have the post of Chargeman (general mechanical) at its D. T .Y. S, it will be perfectly open to the Administration of the O. N G C. to post such a than there but to single out the petitioner, comparatively a very senior man, as the first man, to be assigned these duties smacks of clear discrimination which is hostile ex-facie. To that extent, it is held that the petitioner's posting at D. T. Y. S. is invidious and liable to be struck down. 9. In above view of the matter, I partially allow this petition by declaring that the petitioners posting at D. T. Y. S. in the situation as is available to-day is an act discriminatory vis-a-vis other similarly situated persons in his cadre. I, however, decline to grant to the petitioner the prayer of directing the respondents to assign the duties for hint in drilling section on rig in field work. The result would be that the petitioner will be liable to be posted as a Chargeman (general mechanical) in Mechanical Workshop or in Drilling Branch at rigs, or in Production Branch at C.T F. (Central Tank Farm) or in Field Maintenance Branch at Baroda if he is otherwise liable to be transferred out of Ahmedabad Project. The respondents are restrained in the above circumstances from assigning the petitioner the duties of a Chargeman (general mechanical) at D. T.Y. S. till a formal decision in this regard is taken until common policy is evolved in that regard so as to work equally among similarly situated persons. Rule is accordingly partially made absolute with no order as to costs. It is hoped that keeping aside whether annoyance, if any, felt by the persons in power against the petitioner, they will take into account the petitioner's experience at the rigs and do the needful while assigning him duties. This is only a suggestion and not a direction. Petition allowed.