MIDUL SAIKIA Vs. F C I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.P. Kataki, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Mrs. A. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the F.C.I.

(2.) The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition: is that though admittedly the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribes (Plains) community, he has not been promoted when his juniors i.e. respondents 5 and 6 have been promoted vide office order dated 31.3.89 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).

(3.) Mr. Kataki, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that when the petitioner was appointed as Watchman/Messenger vide appointment letter dated 27.5.78 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the said appointment letter itself clearly showed the petitioner as Scheduled Tribes. As per Clause 3 of the said appointment letter, the petitioner, at the time of his joining, did not require to furnish any caste certificate to prove that he belonged to Scheduled Tribes (Plains) community. It is submitted that since the provisional Zonal Integrated Seniority List of Matriculate or Equivalent Class IV employee as on 31.3.89 did not show the name of the petitioner at Sl. No. 1061 as Scheduled Tribes (Plains), the case of the petitioner had not been considered when promotion from Grade IV to Grade III was made vide order dated 31.3.89 by which the respondents 5 and 6 were also promoted.