Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 239 (JK)

Rajinder Kumar v. State of J&K

2016-04-29

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to release the grade attached to the post of Superintendent ITI by regularising his services as Superintendent ITI from the date he is working on the clear vacancy with all consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was posted as Superintendent ITI Samba on clear vacancy by order dated 29.01.1993 and till date, he is serving on the said post and charge allowance has also been released in his favour. According to the petitioner, there is a provision to promote him as Superintendent as he is a holder with ITI. 3. In terms of SRO 606 of 1980, dated 24.11.1980, for the post of Superintendent, 25% vacancies are to be filled up by Direct Recruitment, 25% by promotion from Junior Engineer from amongst Degree holders and having two years experience and 50% by promotion from Foreman/Surveyors/Supervisory Instructors from persons possessing either (a) Degree in Engineering or their equivalent form any recognised Institute with not less than two years experience in teaching or supervisory or Technical capacity in the trade/subject, (b) 3 years diploma in Engineering or Technology or their equivalent form any recognised Institute with not less than three years experience in teaching or supervisory or Technical capacity in the trade or subject (c) Matric with National Trade Certificate of an ITI and having passed Central Training Course of Government of India with not less than 10 years experience in teaching or Engineering Trades. 4. In the subsequent amendment issued, the category of the petitioner is provided for being promoted. It is not in dispute that the petitioner who was shown at S.No. 4 of the final seniority list was senior than the persons who were already promoted. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was serving as of Superintendent and the charge allowance was also released in his favour. However, in the promotion order dated 14.12.2000, 37 persons were given promotion on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee on regular basis. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of he having been promoted temporarily for three months by order dated 29.01.1993, he is holding the post with only charge allowance which was extended. However, in the promotion order dated 14.12.2000, 37 persons were given promotion on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee on regular basis. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of he having been promoted temporarily for three months by order dated 29.01.1993, he is holding the post with only charge allowance which was extended. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not qualified and was not senior. The only objection raised in the objections is that the rules for promotion to the petitioner were issued only in the year 2002. 6. Before issuance of said rules, SRO 606 of 1980, dated 24.11.1980 was issued which clearly contemplates that 50% promotion is to be made from the Foreman/Surveyor/Supervisory Instructors. Thus, the petitioner has made out a case for allowing the writ petition and consequently, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to give regular promotion to the petitioner from the date his juniors were given promotion. Necessary order is directed to be passed by Respondent No. 1 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The benefits arising out of the said order shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of one month there from. 7. This writ petition is disposed of with above observations. No costs.