Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb 6: High court judge Janak Raj Kotwal has quashed the promotion of a computer operator of SKICC and directed respodents to accord consideration to promotion of the petitioner from operator, P&D, to computer programmer in accordance with rules.
The court directive came in a petition filed by one Sanjay Safaya, seeking quashment of November 3, 2011 SKICC order No SKICC/PS/2001/1491-1500 to the extent it pertains to promotion of the private respondent as computer programmer. He also sought direction to respondents to promote him as computer programmer. Justice Kotwal, after hearing both the sides, observed that seniority list was issued by SKICC Administrative Officer and it could not be ascertained as at what level the illegal act of showing the private respondent as operator, P&D, was committed. Was it administrative officer alone, who issued the list or the authority that approved the list could not be ascertained. It, however, has been noticed with anguish that respondent No 2, who has sworn in affidavit in support of his reply filed on behalf of the official respondents, has given cover up to the wrong committed at the time of preparing the seniority list though it was expected of him to look into and examine this aspect, having regard to the appointment order of the petitioner. "It is clearly stated in the reply affidavit that the private respondent was appointed as operator, P&D, from March 1, 1988. As stated and explained above, order, whereby the private respondent was initially appointed, was issued on August 16, 1988. This does not show that the private respondent was appointed as operator, P&D. A copy of this order has been produced by the private respondent along with his reply affidavit. The official respondents, while taking a stand that the private respondent was appointed as operator, P&D, have chosen not to produce this order before the court, which seems to have been done with a view not to expose the contradiction between the stand taken before the court and the real position shown in the appointment order. A safe inference that can be drawn is that, besides wrongly showing the private respondent as operator, P&D, in the seniority list, a deliberate attempt was made by the official respondents through respondent No 2 not to project the true picture before the court and this is a clear case of discrimination done to the petitioner by an illegal act, whereby his fundamental right of equality enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution has been violated," the court observed.
With these observations, the court quashed the promotion of Jan Mohammad and directed respondents to accord consideration to promotion of the petitioner from operator, P&D, to computer programmer in accordance with rules.
The court, however, said it would be open for the official respondents to accord fresh consideration to the promotion of private respondent, who by virtue of this judgment stands relegated to the post of 'operator', in accordance with rules. (JNF) |
