Vineet Saran - (1.) -The petitioner was appointed on the post of Survey Lekhpal on 6.1.1979. After completing his training of Lekhpal he was confirmed on the said post. In the years 1986 and 1988 certain promotions were granted from the post of Lekhpal to Survey Kanoongo. Since, ignoring the case of the petitioner, certain persons junior to him had been promoted as Survey Kanoongo, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent No. 1. On 20.2.1991, the Assistant Record Officer, Mirzapur, recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion. Comments were also sought from the Assistant Record Officer, Mirzapur which were also in favour of the petitioner but still the petitioner was not granted promotion. He then filed Writ Petition No. 27365 of 1995, in which initially an interim order was granted to the effect that the respondents be restrained from conferring any promotion to the post of Survey Kanoongo without considering the candidature of the petitioner. However, the said writ petition was finally disposed of on 22.4.1997 with the direction that the representation of the petitioner with regard to his promotion be decided by a speaking order. In pursuance thereof, the District Magistrate/Record Officer, Collectorate, Mirzapur, respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned order dated 12.8.1997 whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and directed that his case for promotion be considered in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed. A further prayer has been made for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner as Survey Kanoongo and permit him to function on the said post and pay him regular monthly salary.
(2.) I have heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was placed at serial No. 252 in the tentative seniority list of Survey Lekhpal prepared at the State level. The categorical case of the petitioner is that those Lekhpals who were Junior to him and placed at serial Nos. 253, 257, 258, 259, 261 and 264 had been granted promotion in the year 1986. It has thus been contended that by ignoring his case, the petitioner has been discriminated and prejudiced as he is being made to work under those who were junior to him and had been granted promotion. While deciding the representation of the petitioner the respondent No. 3, has at one place considered the seniority of Survey Lekhpals of district Mirzapur and justified the promotion of certain persons from general category who were placed junior to the petitioner in the State list, by explaining that they were senior to him in the seniority list prepared for district Mirzapur. In the same order it has been stated that those Lekhpals placed at serial Nos. 253, 259 and 264 in the State seniority list were granted promotion as they fell in the reserved category. By this it is clear that the remaining persons who were placed at serial Nos. 257, 258 and 261 in the State seniority list and who were junior to the petitioner have been granted promotion, though they were in the general category.
(3.) IT is very surprising that the respondents have not maintained a consistent policy while granting promotion. Learned standing counsel has not been able to justify as to under what circumstances, for certain promotions the seniority list of Survey Lekhpals prepared in the District of Mirzapur was taken into consideration and for other promotions, the seniority list prepared at State level was taken into consideration. The State, as an employer, has to be consistent with its policy with regard to grant of promotion to its employees so that there is no discrimination between its employees. If a person junior to an employee is granted promotion because of which a senior employee has to work under a person who had been his junior, it would develope discontent amongst the employees. Such situation should be avoided by the employers, especially when the employer is the State Government. In case if the respondents have taken the tentative seniority list prepared at the State level into consideration for grant of promotion, then it is not understood as to why the case of the petitioner was ignored when those who were placed junior to the petitioner in the said State level list were granted promotion in the year 1986. As such, in my view, the petitioner should have been granted promotion when such promotion was given to those persons of the general category placed at serial Nos. 257, 258 and 261 in the State seniority list as the petitioner was admittedly senior to them as he was placed at serial No. 252 of such list. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, in my view, the rejection of the representation of the petitioner by the impugned order cannot be justified in law and it thus deserves to be set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to promotion as Survey Kanoongo from the date when such promotion was given to those persons placed at serial Nos. 257, 258 and 261 in the State seniority list of the general category.;