- (1.) This is a writ petition by one Shri J.P. Mathur under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ, direction or order against respondents Nos 1 to 3 restraining them from confirming respondents Nos. 4 an 15 namely, Lissu Ram and Phool Chand resnectivety, on the post of Lover Division Clerks. The petitioner has sought other incidental reliefs as well.
(2.) The petitioner entered Government service as a Lower Division Clerk in the Officer of the Senior Settlement Officer under the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India The post in this Department was temporary. The petitioner was thereafter appioned on an Upper Division Clerk with effect from 28.4.54. He was subsequently appointed by promotion as a Junior Accountant with effect from 22-2-56. He got further promotion as Junior Field Inspector with effect from 1-5-57. The petitioner was then as a Junior Account. He worked as Senior Accountant with effect from 16-11-63 The petitioner was declared to be quasi permanent in that Department with effect from 1-7-56, in terms of rule (b) of Rule 2 read with Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, hereinafter to be referred as "the 1949 Rules". A seniority list of the non-gazetted staff was issued on dated 20-7-62 According to the petitioner, his name appears at serial number 5 amongst Senior Accountants and at No. 10 amongst Upper Division Clerks, at No 5 Junior Field Inspectors and at No. 20 amongst Lower Division Clerks. Respondent Lissu Ram, who was a member of the scheduled caste, came to be appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 11-3-64. His name appeared at No. 71 in the seniority list of Lower Division Clerks Phool Chand, respondent No. 5, came to be appointed as Lower Division Clerks on 4-3-64 Thus, according to the petitioner, he had put in a much longer service than the respondents Nos 4 and 5 and was much senior to them. Since the Department was temporary, the petitioner could not be confirmed for long as any permanent vacancy was not available. To releve the hand (sic) of all the temporary employees of the Governments, the President made 50 percent of the posts other than class IV posts in such non-permanent departments as had existed for not less than 10 years and is were in existence for a period of 5 years or more and were required indefinitely The petitioner proceeds to say mat according to the orders of the President, 14 posts of the Lower Division Clerks in the Rehabilitation Department were made permanent. According to the seniority list of Lower Division Clerks 14 other persons who were senior to the petitioner came to be confirmed as Lower Division Calrks. The petitioner maintains that certain persons in the seniority list whose names appear at Nos. 6, 8 and 9 cannot be confirmed as Lower Division Clerks in the Rehabilitation Department, because they came from the ex Custodian Office of he Government of Rajasthan. Thus, according to the petitioner, there were three permanenors posts of Lower Division Clerks against which two persons senior to the petitioner and the petitioner being the third could be confirmed. The petitioner's grievance is that Lissu Ram and Phoolchand, respondents Nos. 4 and 5, respectively' are being considered for confirmation as Lower Division Clerks, even though they were much junior to the petitioner. The petitioner refers to an Office Memorandum of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 12-9-68 and contends that this Office Memorandum is standing in the view of the petitioner's confirmation as the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 being the members of the Schedule castes would get weighrage over him The case of the petitioner in nut-shell is that the Office Memorandum of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs is contrary to rules and is calculated to override the claim of the petitioner who had been in quas-permanent service of the Govt. since long after his remaining temporary for a number of years. The Office memorandum, according to the petitioner, is hit by the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(3.) The respondents have not chosen to file any written statement, but Shri Purohit, learned Additional Government Advocate, who appears for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, opposes the writ petition.;