HC quashes seniorty of computer opreater in SKICC

07/02/2016

Jammu, Feb 6: In a petition filed by one Sanjay Safaya seeking quashment of Order No. SKICC/PS/2001/1491-1500 dated 03.11.2001 issued by SKICC to the extent it pertains to promotion of the private respondent as Computer Programmer in pay scale of 6700-10700. Besides, petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Computer Programmer.
Justice Janak Raj Kotwal of J&K High Court Jammu Wing after hearing both the sides observed that the seniority list was issued by Administrative Officer, SKICC 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 the reply/counter filed on behalf of the official respondents, has given cover up to the wrong committed at the time of preparing/issuing 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 reply/counter affidavit that private respondent was appointed as Operator, P&D in pay scale of 900-1830 (revised 4000-6000) w.e.f. 1st March, 1988. As stated and explained above, order issued in the year 1988 whereby private respondent was initially appointed was the one dated 16.08.1988 which, however, 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/counter affidavit.
The official respondents, while taking a stand that 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.
With these observations High Court quashed the promotion of Jan Mohammad and directed respodents to accord consideration to promotion of the petitioner from Operator, P&D to Computer Programmer in accordance with the Rules.
Court further said that it shall, however, be open for the official respondents to accord fresh consideration to the promotion of the private respondent, who by virtue of this judgment stands relegated to the post of 'Operator', in accordance with Rules. JNF

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty