- (1.) Junior Lecturer Assistants, working in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-, were to be promoted to the post of Technical Assistants Grade-I having a pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. Similarly, Junior Technicians Grade-I as well as Store-keepers, both in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-7850/- could be promoted to the post of Technical Assistants Grade-I with pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. Once the different posts in the feeder-cadre for promotion to the post of Technical Assistant but were not equal the persons holding the posts of Junior Technicians Grade-I as well as Store-keepers were to have a prior right of consideration for the promotional post vis-a-vis the persons holding the posts of Junior Lecturer Assistants as they were in the higher pay scale than the Junior Lecturer Assistants. Moreover, as has been demonstrated by the petitioners and not refuted by the respondents, the petitioners, out of whom petitioner No. 1 was Junior Technician Grade-I earlier, while petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 were Store-keepers, were promoted/appointed as such earlier to the private respondents, who were manning the posts of Junior Lecturer Assistants, it were the petitioners who were required to be promoted first than the private respondents. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the following observations in Rattan Singh v. The State of Haryana and others,1999 3 RSJ 179 :- "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. If there are more than one post in the feeder cadre, the holders of which can be considered for promotion to the next higher rank and the feeder posts are equal in status and pay scales and there is no ratio provided between different posts in the feeder cadre for being promoted to the higher post and even no roster is provided, then under these circumstances, a working seniority on the basis of length of service of the equal post would necessarily have to be drawn and the senior-most person in the working joint seniority list would have a first right to consideration for the higher post. In case all the posts in the feeder cadre are not equal and yet the holders of all those posts are eligible for promotion to the next higher rank depending upon their experience etc. as per the rules, then the person who is holding the higher post in status in the feeder cadre has a prior right of consideration for the higher post and after exhausting such holders of the post in the feeder cadre, the consideration may trickle down to the lower post in the feeder cadre. This view of ours finds support from the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first one being a Division Bench judgment in which one of us (R.S. Mognia, J.) was a member. The second judgment (single Bench judgment) of Rameshwar Dass was also rendered by one of us (R.S. Mongia, J.)."
(2.) The stand of the respondents that the posts of Junior Lecturer Assistants were technical in nature and therefore, these employees were to be promoted to the posts of Technical Assistants Grade-I and only thereafter whatever vacancy was available was to be filled by promotion from amongst Junior Technicians Grade-I and the Store-keepers, is not borne out from any material on the record. It appears that the stand has been taken by the respondents only to justify the promotion of the private respondents first in point of time than that of the petitioners.
(3.) The private respondents have been promoted with effect from 29.7.2005 to the posts of Technical Assistant Grade-I, while in the case of the petitioners it is made with effect from 1.8.2005. As has been held above, the petitioners were to be considered first for the purposes of promotion to the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I than the private respondents as the former were in the higher pay scale of Rs. 5000-7850/- in comparison to the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- of the latter, whilst in the feeder cadre. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to treat the petitioners as having been promoted first to the posts of Technical Assistants Grade-I before the promotion of the private respondents and assign them seniority accordingly.;