Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 366 (GAU)

Upendra Nath Bezbaruah v. State of Assam

2005-05-10

H.N.SARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. Uzir, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Thakur, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate on behalf of the State Respondents. 2. The Petitioners, 7 (seven) in numbers are all Superintendents, serving in different Industrial Training Institutes (For short ITI). The short grievance raised in this petition is that, although there are existing vacancies of Principal in 24 numbers of I.T.Is. in the State, the State Government has not filled up those posts; thereby not only stagnating the promotional avenues of the Petitioners, but also having adverse affect on the academic training of the Students. It is the case of the Petitioners that, these I.T.Is. being required to train the students in technical aspects, filling up of those posts and other vacant posts in the I.T.I, is a must for proper and effective training of the students. It has been submitted by Mr. Uzir that due to non-promotion to the rank of Principal from the qualified Superintendents, now serving in the I.T.Is., the Petitioners have been adversely affected in their service career and they are stagnated in their posts for 10 to 16 years and accordingly, Mr. Uzir has prayed for necessary direction to the State Government to fill up the posts of those principals with immediate effect. 3. An affidavit in opposition has been filed on behalf of the State Government denying the contentions of the writ Petitioners. Similar affidavit has also been filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 wherein the background of the setting up of the I.T.Is. in the State is revealed. The Respondent No. 4 and 5 in principle had not denied the allegations of the Petitioners. None the less, it is the State Government, who is responsible for administration of the existing I.T.Is. of the State and the promotional and other conditions of service of the employees including the writ Petitioners, who are being supervised as well as controlled by the State Government itself. In the affidavit in opposition of the State Government it is stated that four (4) posts of Senior Principals of I.T.Is. at Jorhat, Guwahati, Srikona and Nagaon are vacant for some time, which is due to the fact that there are no incumbents in the feeder cadre of Jr. Principal. It is also stated therein that, all the 5 (five) posts of Jr. at Jorhat, Guwahati, Srikona and Nagaon are vacant for some time, which is due to the fact that there are no incumbents in the feeder cadre of Jr. Principal. It is also stated therein that, all the 5 (five) posts of Jr. Principals were vacant since along time is partly correct and in fact those posts including one post of Asstt. Director of Craftsmen Training, which is borne in the same cadre, are lying vacant for some time due to administrative reasons as well as ban on new recruitment. At Para 6 and 7 of the affidavit in opposition, it is stated as follows: 6. That, with regard to the statement made in Para 5 of the writ petition, this deponent begs to state that the contention made by the Petitioner that all the Superintendents are entitled for promotion to the next higher post of Principal (Jr.) since have been rendering continuous service for ten to sixteen years, which is much above the stipulated minimum period of four years of service as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Assam Craftsmen, Training Service Rules, 1993. In this regard, it is submitted that Rule 5(b) of the said A.C.T.S. Rules, 1993 also stipulated that "50% of the cadre strength will be filled up by promotion. The rest 50% will be filled up by way of Direct Recruitment in accordance to the Rule 6(1)". Consequent to this provision, the Government of Assam decided to follow the Rule 5(b) of A.C.T.S. Rules, 1993 and promoted 50% of the cadre strength of 6(six) i.e. 1 (one) Superintendent to the post of Asstt. Director of Craftsmen Training and other 2 (two) to the post of Jr. Principal. 7. That, with regard to the statement made in Para 6 of the writ petition, this deponent begs to state that it is true that due to various administrative reasons 4(four) posts of Deputy Directors, 4(four) posts of Senior Principal could not be filled up for several years. At the same time 3 (three) posts of Deputy Directors of Craftsmen Training and 29 (twenty nine) redundant posts which were considered non-essential, were abolished in pursuance of the Government decision to prune the number of employees as a part of austerity measures. This deponent further states that it is not true that the abolition of the posts has created problems for imparting technical education through the I.T.I. 4. This deponent further states that it is not true that the abolition of the posts has created problems for imparting technical education through the I.T.I. 4. It is the further case of the State Respondents that only non-essential and redundant posts, which were lying vacant were abolished under instruction of Govt. of India, with a view to save the scarce financial resources of the State Government. At Para 15 of the affidavit in opposition it is stated as follows: 15. That, with regard to the statement made in para 10(E) of the writ petition, this deponent begs to state that relaxation of any Rules is discretionary in nature. The Government is not unaware of the problems arising out of shortage of manpower in the rank of Principal (Jr.) but decided to go by the provisions laid down under Rule 5(b) of the Assam Craftsmen Training Service Rules, 1993 on some fundamental considerations. As per this Rule, 3 (three) out of 6 (six) posts were accordingly filled up by promotion and the rest 3 (three) posts will be filled up by direct recruitment procedure. Referring to the statements made in the affidavit in opposition, Mr. A.K. Thakur has stated that it is not true that the State Government is apathetic towards the academic atmosphere in the I.T.Is., and in fact three (3) posts of Jr. Principal had been filled up by way of promotion from amongst the Superintendents. It is not disputed at the Bar that, out of 24 numbers of I.T. Is., vacancies of Jr. Principals in 12 I.T.Is. i.e. 50% of the total posts are to be filled up by way of promotion, it appears that there are still nine (9) posts left to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the Superintendents holding the feeder cadre. 5. At this stage, Mr. Uzir, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has strenuously submitted that proper direction may be issued by this Court for filling up the 9(nine) posts of Jr. Principals from amongst the feeder post of Superintendents and in doing so, obviously the authority shall take into consideration, all the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules holding the field. 6. Promotion of a Government Servant to a particular higher post is not a fundamental right, but consideration for promotion of a particular employee is his fundamental right. Principals from amongst the feeder post of Superintendents and in doing so, obviously the authority shall take into consideration, all the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules holding the field. 6. Promotion of a Government Servant to a particular higher post is not a fundamental right, but consideration for promotion of a particular employee is his fundamental right. Each of the present writ Petitioners have got the fundamental right to be considered for promotion to the rank of Jr. Principal in the I.T.Is. provided that, they come under the zone of consideration as per the recruitment rules. 7. Upon consideration of the aforesaid and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with a direction that, the State Government shall take necessary initiative for filling up the required numbers of post of Junior Principals in the I.T.Is., so that these I.T.Is. do not suffer any more for want of administrative head. That apart, they will also provide an opportunity of promotion to the Petitioners to the next higher cadre, which a model employer is required to take note of. 8. It is expected that, such decisions would be taken by the authority, particularly by the Respondent No. 1, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four(4) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, to be submitted by the Petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is finally closed.