M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for regularisation of his service to the post of Research Assistant with effect from 1981 and further to promote him to the post of Assistant Research Officer and to give all consequential benefits thereof.
(2.) PETITIONERS case is that he was appointed as Lab assistant in the year 1975 alongwith others on Muster Roll and work charged as Lab Assistant till November, 1977. In the year 1980 the name of the petitioner alongwith others was recommended for regularisation to the post of Lab Assistant but the case of the petitioner was ignored while other persons including respondent No. 4 were given regular appointment on the post of Lab Assistant. Petitioner made several representations and it was only in 1983 the services of the petitioner was regularised on the said post. Petitioner has given several instances where other persons having similar qualification and similar criteria were given promotion earlier than that of the petitioner. Petitioners further case is that in 1989 his case was highly recommended for confirmation and promotion from the date the promotion and regularisation was due to him. It is alleged that the petitioner and other persons were appointed by single letter of appointment but for the purpose of promotion different date of appointment were taken into consideration to favour other persons including respondent No. 4. Petitioner said to have made several representations to the respondents but in spite of that respondents did not consider the representations of the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent - State denying and disputing the averments made in the writ application. It is stated that in 1980 an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Research Assistant and in response to this advertisement several persons have applied. The case of those persons who applied for appointment were considered and appointment was made in1981. But appointment of petitioner to the post of Research assistant was not considered because he did not apply for the same. So far promotion from Laboratory Assistant to the post of Research Assistant is concerned the petitioner is too junior in Laboratory assistant Cadre to get promotion to the post of Research Assistant. It is further stated that the provision of promotion/appointment to the post of Research Assistant was stayed vide letter dated 21.4.1990. It is further alleged that petitioners case for promotion to the post of Assistant Research Officer can only be considered if he gets promotion to the post of Research assistant. A separate counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4.
(3.) I have heard Mr. B.S. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and also Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned GP I.;