9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the 3rd respondent's appointment as Assistant Director of Factories without Public Service Commission selection. 2. Alleged mala fide nature of the 3rd respondent's promotion. 3. Legality of converting the post of Deputy Director of Factories (Chemical) to Deputy Director of Factories (Administration). 4. Eligibility of the 3rd respondent for promotion without completing five years of substantive service. 5. Legality and fairness of reservation in promotion exceeding the prescribed percentage. 6. Validity of the promotion of the 3rd respondent when a reserved category candidate already occupied the post. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the 3rd respondent's appointment as Assistant Director of Factories: The appellant contested that the 3rd respondent was appointed on a regular basis without undergoing the requisite selection process as mandated by Rule 5(iii) of the 1992 Rules and without being recommended by the Public Service Commission. The court noted that the 3rd respondent's appointment was ad hoc and his services were regularized in 1995 without following the proper selection process, rendering the appointment void ab initio. The court emphasized the need for adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which mandate equality of opportunity in public employment. 2. Alleged mala fide nature of the 3rd respondent's promotion: The appellant argued that the promotion of the 3rd respondent was mala fide. The court observed that the promotion process showed undue haste and favoritism, particularly since the promotion was approved by the Chief Minister and executed rapidly. The court identified this as an act of malice in law, where actions are taken for unauthorized purposes, thus supporting the claim of mala fide intentions. 3. Legality of converting the post of Deputy Director of Factories (Chemical) to Deputy Director of Factories (Administration): The court found that the conversion of the post was done without obtaining the necessary concurrence from the Finance Department and was aimed at favoring the 3rd respondent. The court held that such conversion was contrary to the 1992 Rules and was an arbitrary exercise of power, thus illegal. 4. Eligibility of the 3rd respondent for promotion without completing five years of substantive service: The court interpreted Rule 5(iii) of the 1992 Rules, which requires a candidate to have at least five years of substantive service for promotion. The 3rd respondent, having been substantively appointed only in 1995, did not meet this criterion in 1997. The court ruled that the 3rd respondent's ad hoc service could not be counted towards the required substantive service, making him ineligible for promotion. 5. Legality and fairness of reservation in promotion exceeding the prescribed percentage: The appellant contended that the reservation in favor of Scheduled Castes was illegal as it raised the percentage of reserved posts from 21% to 33%. The court noted that the reservation policy must adhere to the prescribed limits and that the conversion of posts and subsequent promotion exceeded the permissible reservation percentage, thus violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. Validity of the promotion of the 3rd respondent when a reserved category candidate already occupied the post: The court found that the post of Deputy Director of Factories (Administration) was already occupied by a reserved category candidate, Shri Ghanshyam Singh. Promoting another reserved category candidate to the same post was unjust and illegal, as it disrupted the balance of reservation and exceeded the permissible limits. Conclusion: The court concluded that the impugned judgment of the High Court could not be sustained due to the gross illegalities committed in the appointment and promotion process of the 3rd respondent. The appeal was allowed, and the promotion order was set aside. The court also directed that the costs of Rs. 50,000 be borne equally by the State and the 3rd respondent.
|
