Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE original writ petition has been amended with few additional prayer. Those additional prayers sought to be incorporated were allowed on 19.7.2013 when I.A. No. 3931 of 2013 was pressed for the said purpose by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Amongst the original and additional prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to the following two prayers: - A. For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the reasoned order as contained in Memo No. 962 Ranchi dated 07.05.2013 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Welfare Department, Annexure -1 of I.A. No. 3931 of 2013 and Annexure -D to the Supplementary Counter affidavit dated 9.5.2013, whereby the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner for his promotion by the respondent No. 3 has been disallowed on the basis of the provisions contained in the Jharkhand State Clerk/Clerk cum Typist/Typist and other Clerical Service Cadre(Appointment, Promotion & other Service Conditions) Rules, 2010 which is not at all applicable to the case of the petitioner on the ground that his post of "Computer(Sanganak)" is a Graduate Level Statistical Supervisory post. B. For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby: -Directing the respondent No. 1 to 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for regular promotion to the post of Research Officer with effect from 29.07.1986, further to the post of Assistant Director with effect from 30.07.1991 and further to the post of Deputy Director with effect from 31.7.1996 as recommended by the respondent No. 3 through letter No. 635 Ranchi dated 20.12.2001(Annexure -6) and letter No. 477 Ranchi dated 6.10.2004(Annexure -6/1) Prayer for financial up gradation is also no longer subsisting as the petitioner has been granted the benefit of first and second A.C.P. as is evident from the impugned order dated 7.5.2013 issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Welfare Department. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has chosen to press the two subsisting prayers The brief background of the factual road map is required to be indicated to appreciate the controversy now being agitated on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Computer in the Tribal Welfare Research Institute on 28.7.1981, which is now known as Jharkhand Tribal Welfare Research Institute, Ranchi. The petitioner was having the qualification of Graduation in Mathematics at the time of entry in service. It is also not in dispute that the Tribal Research Institute is functioning under the Welfare Department of the State and Board of Directors to govern. From the pay revision committee report being the 4th PRC report which is Annexure -11 to the petitioner's rejoinder filed on 21.6.2013 it is evident that post of Computer in the Tribal Welfare Research Institute had been existing in the scale of Rs. 296 -460 which was recommended to Rs. 785 -1210 under the 4th PRC. From Annexure -12, a report of Pay Anomaly Removal Committee, it appears that grievances of the petitioner were also raised in respect of the pay anomaly and considered by the said committee which granted the scale of Rs. 850 -1360 to the petitioner as was allowed in cases of Statistical Assistant having the same existing scale. The petitioner was granted the scale of Rs. 5000 -8000 in the 5th PRC implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1996 by the respondents. It is also evident from the impugned order dated 7.5.2013 that by the grant of first and second A.C.P. he has been given the scale Rs. 5500 -9000 and Rs. 6500 -10,500. In the wake of all these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure -5 which is the minutes of the meeting of the Governing Council of the Tribal Welfare Research Institute held on 17.5.1998. According to him vide para 12 thereof, it has been submitted that recommendation was made for regular promotion of the petitioner holding the post of Computer and few other persons holding different post of Research Officer and Research Investigator. According to the petitioner the Director of the Institute on 20.12.2001(Annexure -6) categorically recommended for promotion of the petitioner on completion of 5 years of service to the post of Research Officer and thereafter to the post of Assistant Director and Deputy Director successively upon completion of each 5 years w.e.f. 29.7.1986, 30.7.1991 and 31.7.1996. These recommendations of promotion, according to the petitioner were never acted upon and subsequently the recommendation of the Director of the Tribal Welfare Research Institute was withdrawn by the department itself.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite being in service since 1981 he has been holding the post of Computer till today and has not been given the substantive promotion, though he has the qualification of Graduation in Mathematics and is entitled to the higher post of Research Officer, Deputy Director in the Institute after having acquired the higher qualification of Master Degree and Rural Management while in service. It is submitted that all these facts have been overlooked by the respondents when they have chosen to pass the impugned order on 7.5.2013 during the pendency of the writ application. It is submitted that the respondents have chosen to be guided by the Jharkhand State Clerk/Clerk cum Typist/Typist and other Clerical Service Cadre(Recruitment, Promotion & other Service Conditions) Rules, 2010. However, by referring to Rule 4 thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the minimum qualification for entry in such service as laid down is Intermediate, while the post on which the petitioner was appointed was having entry level qualification of Graduation. In support of the aforesaid contention he has again relied upon Annexure 13 and 13/1 dated 13.12.1990 and 18.9.1990 which indicate that post of Computer required the minimum educational qualification of Graduation with Mathematics or Statistics. It is therefore submitted that the entire case of the petitioner has been addressed on wholly incorrect approach and in the process any substantive promotion which he deserves to next higher post has been denied. This is also not reasonable as it would lead to stagnation in service after having remained for more than 30 years on the same post in the Institute in question. The grant of A.C.P. alone is not enough when there are no promotional avenues for the said post. He has also referred to Rule 3 of 2010 Rules as per which the post of Head Clerk is a promotional post and enjoys the scale of R. 5000 -8000 like that of the petitioner who is holding original post of Computer in the Institute till date. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order deserves to be quashed and further, case of the petitioner should be considered for grant of regular promotion to the next higher posts.;