Pratap
Singh Vs. The Registrar, Igit & Ors [2000] INSC 674 (15 December 2000)
Special Leave Petition (civil) 2885 of 1999
S.V.Patil,
D.P.Mohapatro
D E R
L.I.T.J Leave granted.
Heard Shri
Ashok Kumar Panda, learned senior counsel for appellant and Shri Jayant Das,
learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Shri S.B. Upadhyay, learned
counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7, and Shri Janaranjan Das, learned counsel
for respondent Nos. 8 to 11.
Being
aggrieved by the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition OJC
No.4783, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave assailing the
judgment.
The
Writ Petition was filed by the appellant seeking issue of a writ of mandamus to
the respondents the Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology (for short IGIT), Sarang,
in the State of Orissa and the State Government for framing of specific rules
governing his service conditions; for inclusion of his name in the common cadre
of ministerial staff in the category of cashier/senior assistant accepting him
as a ministerial staff /cashier since 17.4.1986/ 1.7.1986; for his placement in
the gradation list of the cadre of senior assistants of the IGIT.
The
High Court, on consideration of the matter, declined to grant any reliefs to
the appellant and disposed of the writ petition with the observation we make it
clear that if in the meantime the petitioner has been regularised in the post
of cashier, it is open to him to make a further representation to allow him to
continue in that post.
The
main thrust of the arguments of Shri Ashok Kumar Panda learned senior counsel
for the appellant was that though the appellant was initially appointed in the
post of assistant cashier he was discharging the duties of cashier.
Considering
the representation made by the appellant he was offered the post of cashier
with effect from 1.5.1989 which fact is reflected in the tentative gradation
list of the ministerial staff as on 1.6.1991 (Annexure P 11).
Subsequent
thereto the appellant was transferred as senior assistant with effect from
11.7.1990/16.8.90 and since then he is holding the post of senior assistant.
Though the name of the appellant has been included in the gradation list as a
member of the ministerial staff of the institution his entry into the present
grade has been shown as on 16.8.1990 which in the submissions of Shri Panda is
erroneous.
According
to Shri Panda the posts of cashier and senior assistant are
interchangeable/inter-transferable posts, and they carry the same scale of pay.
Therefore, there is no reason why the service rendered by the appellant as
cashier with effect from 1.5.1989 when his appointment in that post was regularised
should not be counted for the purpose of determination of seniority. If the appellant
is taken to have made his entry in the present grade on 1.5.1989 then he will
become senior to respondents 4 to 7 herein who are placed in the tentative
gradation list at serial nos. 3 to 6 while the appellant is placed at serial
no.7.
On
perusal of the order under challenge we find that the High Court has not
considered the question of the appellants claim of seniority on the basis noted
above.
From
the discussions in the judgment it appears that the High Court dismissed the
writ petition mainly on the ground that the reliefs for issue of writ of
mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to formulate a policy and to prepare
rules regarding service conditions cannot be entertained in a writ petition.
The High Court observed:
Back
