Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 545 (JK)

Union Of India v. Bal Krishan

2010-10-22

Aftab H.Saikia, Sunil Hali

body2010
Per Sunil Hali, J. 1. Promotion to the posts of Assistants has to be made from two sources, namely, UDCs and Stenographers Grade-III. Only those stenographers would be entitled to such promotion, who had given option/ opted for clerical cadre prior to March 29, 1985. Statutory rules, providing for such a promotion from two sources, was issued by the petitioners vide SRO 122 dated 13.07.1999.. The rules provide for 90% of Assistants to be filled from the category of UDCs and 10% from the category of Stenographers Grade-III. The petitioners, vide order dated 16.02.1999, up-graded the posts of UDCs as Assistants. Said up-gradation was questioned by the respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The plea taken in the application was that said up-gradation was in fact, promotion from UDCs to Assistants and was in violation of the recruitment rules and this could not have been done unless 10% quota, to which they were entitled to, was given to the respondents. 2. The Tribunal allowed the application of the respondents and directed that the DPC be held for assessing the eligibility of the applicants and persons similarly situated like them on the basis of the seniority vis-a-vis UDCs who were to appear along with them in the matter of selection. The Tribunal further provided that if DPC clears the case, all such persons are to be accommodated against such posts with their rightful position of seniority in the grade of Assistants. However, no arrears were required to be paid to them. 3. This order of the Tribunal has been questioned by the petitioners in this Court through the medium of present writ petition. 4. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that, it was not a case of promotion but one time up-gradation of those UDCs, who were performing special duties. This was done in respect of those UDCs who were performing complex nature of duties and drawing special pay and that only 418 UDCs were up-graded and it was done by reduction of said posts from the category of UDCs. 5. On the other hand the stand of the respondents is that under the guise of up-gradation petitioners have promoted 418 UDCs as Assistants. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Stenographers Grade-III had opted for clerical cadre on 29.03.1985. 5. On the other hand the stand of the respondents is that under the guise of up-gradation petitioners have promoted 418 UDCs as Assistants. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Stenographers Grade-III had opted for clerical cadre on 29.03.1985. Their next promotion was to the post of Assistants and under rules 10% quota was ear-marked for the stenographers for being promoted as Assistants. Whatever be the colour of the order, it, in essence, promotes the UDCs to the posts of Assistants. Consequent reduction of the posts of UDCs would not take away the content and effect of the order which is that UDCs were put on higher scale of Assistants. By appointing 418 UDCs as Assistants, respondents' right to ask for 10% quota has been taken away by the petitioners. We cannot agree with the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that no promotion was made and it was only a case of up-gradation. 8. The other aspect of the matter is that the basis for up-gradation of the posts has been co-related to the complex nature of duties being performed by the said UDCs and drawing of special pay. Consequence of this order is that 418 posts have been added to the category of Assistants. For making appointment to the posts of Assistants, 10% quota is required to be earmarked for the stenographers Grade-III. 9. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal in this behalf as it has been rightly stated that this up-gradation has ultimately led to increase of the strength in the cadre of Assistants and for such increase of strength, admissible quota in that category would go to stenographers by adopting the process of up-gradation. No such up-gradation has been permitted in respect of the stenographers to the posts of Assistants to the extent of 10%. 10. We, therefore, find no force in this writ petition. Same is dismissed and petitioners are directed to maintain the direction of the Tribunal in this behalf.