Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 217 (JK)

Bashir Ahmad Naikoo v. State Of J. &K.

2000-10-05

B.P.SARAF, SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2000
Per Syed Bashir-ud-Din, J. 1. Petitioner, an Agriculture Overseer, was adjusted in his own pay and grade with charge allowance under rules against a vacant post of Field Assistant, Soil Conservation in Agriculture Department of the State by order No: 850/E of 1985 dated.25.11.1985. On 10.03.1988 by order No:22/E of 1988 petitioner was adjusted as Agriculture Overseer against one of the posts available with the department. This order of 10.03.1988 of Director Agriculture was challenged in SWP No.559/88. The learned Single Judge, after providing opportunity to the petitioner, dismissed the writ -petition on 16.04.1998. This order of dismissal of the writ petition is under challenge before us in this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The Appellants counsel submits that the Appellant was promoted vide order dated: 25.11.1985 to a higher post of Field Assistant, therefore, he could not have been demoted by order dated. 10.03.1988 without providing him an opportunity. The counsel further submits that notwithstanding styling of the order dated.10.03.1988 as an adjustment, the order, as per practice in the Department of Agriculture, is for all practical purposes the promotion, of course, made subject to clearance by the D.P.C. Appellant, alongwith other Overseers/Supervisors/Store Keepers/Laboratory Assistants, was promoted on the basis of his placement/position in the seniority list. The order dated: 10.03.1988, in effect reducing him in rank and status, could not have been passed without hearing appellant. The cases of others like appellant have been regularised. 3. The counsel for respondents, Mr. R.A. Khan, GA, counters the submissions of Appellants counsel by canvassing that the order dated 25.11.1985, in fact simply adjusts me petitioner, among others, against a post of Field Assistant in District Pulwama in the grade of the post of Overseer, to which post and grade appellant is substantively appointed. For this adjustment, petitioner-appellant has been paid charge allowance under rules and further even his adjustment has been made subject to DPC, petitioner was never promoted under this order. Subsequent order of 10.03.1988, would fairly show that the petitioner was asked time and again to produce testimonials of eligibility, academic and technical qualification of petitioner for the post, in which he was adjusted. He was given time for the purpose to produce academic as well as technical qualifications which he failed to do although. Subsequent order of 10.03.1988, would fairly show that the petitioner was asked time and again to produce testimonials of eligibility, academic and technical qualification of petitioner for the post, in which he was adjusted. He was given time for the purpose to produce academic as well as technical qualifications which he failed to do although. Besides, as the arrangement ordered under order dated 25.11.1985, was a mere arrangement meant to run the field work, the adjustment of Appellant back to his substantive post as Agriculture Overseer, was not in any sense of the term his reduction in rank and /or status. The order dated: 25.11.1985, makes it amply clear that the arrangement adjusting appellant against the post of Field Assistant was in his own pay and grade (carried by the post of Agriculture Overseer to which appellant was substantively appointed) with charge-allowance. Not only so, even this arrangement was kept subject to approval of the DPC. All this should suffice to show that by passing the order of 10.03.1988, posting of appellant as Agriculture Overseer/ Store Keeper is neither demotion nor reduction in rank nor stigma. 4. Apart from the question that the Appellant was given ample opportunities to produce academic and technical qualification testimonials before the competent authority which he did not avail of, the arrangement ordered and adjustment made under order dated 25.11.1985 simply speaks of the adjustment of appellant alongwith many others in his own pay and grade with charge-allowance permissible under rules against one of the vacant posts of Field Assistant in the Agriculture Department in District Pulwama. This order nowhere shows that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Field Assistant from his present substantive post of Storekeeper. Even so, this arrangement was kept subject to the approval by the Departmental promotion Committee. The payment ant drawl of charge-allowance, as permissible under rules, during adjustment and work in tin post of Field Assistant by Appellant with stipulation of his working in this post in his own pay and grade, amply makes it clear that adjustment of Appellant in the post of Field Assistant is by no known interpretation of the language used in the order a promotion to a higher grade Therefore, the subsequent order dated. 10.03.1988, adjusting the appellant as Agriculture Overseer in his own pay and grade, is not a reduction in rank or reversion of the appellant It does not carry any stigma. Even, we are told that the Departmental Promotion Committee if at all constituted, had not met to approve the said arrangement. The contention of the counsel that others who joined with appellant in the arrangement have reached higher posts, is not the question that substantially and directly arise in the facts and circumstances of this case, for consideration and adjudication before us. In result, the appeal does not succeed on merits and is dismissed without order as to costs.