R K LAL Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to quash the impugned order promoting the Respondent No.3 (Sri K.R. Sati) ignoring the claim of the petitioner with a further direction to promote the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts are as follows : That the petitioner was appointed as Sr. Teacher in Chemistry with effect from 22.7.74 under the Respondents No.1 and 2. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to work as Head Master from 1.1.85 and as In-charge Assistant Director of Public Instruction (Science and Mathematics) and thereafter he was allowed to work from March, 1989 as Vice-Principal, of Government H.S. School at Seppa where from the petitioner was taken to work as Assistant Director of Public Instruction (ADPI-Materials). This was done so that the petitioner can have treatment of his ailment of cervical spondelites. It is stated that while working as Assistant Director, Public Instruction, the Director of Public Instruction, Itanagar withdrew a huge amount of Rs. 35.81 lacs from the Government exchequer in the name of the petitioner and for mat the petitioner made representation to the Accountant General who took up the matter with the departmental authorities and ultimately the matters was taken up for investigation by the State Vigilance. It is stated that with an ulterior motive to get rid of the petitioner from Itanagar, the Director of Public Instruction with then Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Education Department entered into conspiracy to harass the petitioner and transfer the petitioner from the sanctioned cadre post of Asstt. Director, Public Instruction, Itanagar to the Post of Assistant Principal, Bolung H.S. School which is an unsanctioned and uncadred post. The petitioner was released from the post of Assistant Director with effect from 5.12.92. The petitioner made representation against the illegal order of transfer and ultimately the order was amended by issuing an addendum on 8.1.93 requiring the petitioner to join as Principal of Bolung Higher Secondary School The petitioner made further representation to allow him to stay at Itanagar but that representation yielded no response and the petitioner joined as Principal, Bolung Higher Secondary School with effect from 6.2.93. No charge was handed over by the petitioner and the authority took charge and the Board of Officers were appointed to break open the locks for the purpose of assuming the charge. The petitioner was suspended by issuing an order dated 5.3.93 pending disciplinary proceeding. The inquiry was proceeded as against the petitioner. That on 19.7.93 the Respondent No.2 issued an order of promotion promoting the petitioner's junior, the respondent No. 3 as Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Bolung in preference to the petitioner. That order of promotion is at Annexure-A to the writ application. The petitioner, earlier made representations dated 30.12.92, 15.6.93 and 18.7.93 praying for his promotion, but the respondent No.2 promoted the respondent No.3. It is stated that the respondent No.3 was appointed as a Senior Teacher with effect from 25.7.74 while the petitioner was appointed as such with effect from 22.7.74 and the Serial No. of the petitioner and the respondent No.3 in the Final Seniority list of Assistt. Director/District Education Officer's position are 98 and 99 respectively. The seniority position in the list of Head Master/Vice-Principal are 85 and 86 respectively. It is stated that the post to which the respondent No.3 is promoted is a non cadred and non sanctioned post as there is no post of nomenclature of Asstt. Principal. The petitioner claims promotion as Principal/Deputy Director of Public Instruction with effect from the actual date of promotion of the respondent No.3.

(3.) An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 wherein it is stated that disciplinary proceeding is pending against the petitioner and as such question of promotion of the petitioner does not arise as this promotion shall be subject to the result of the disciplinary proceeding. An affidavit-in-reply has teen filed wherein the statements made in the writ application have been reiterated. I have heard Shri T.C. Khetri, Learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri M. Nath, Learned Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh