http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: JAI RAM SHARMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   369        1996 SCALE  (4)449

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order dated February 10, 1995 of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir  in LPA  No.77 of  1990. The  admitted position is that  while   the  respondent   NO.5,  P.N.  Jalla,  was  on deputation as  senior Steno,  the appellant was appointed on regular basis  as Office  Superintendent. For  the  post  of Public Relations  Officer, he  is required  to be considered for promotion  on regular basis. Instead of promoting him on regular  basis,   the  deputation   is  was  considered  and promoted. The appellant challenged the said action by way of writ petition  which was  not  properly  considered  be  the Division Bench.  When the matter had come up for. admission, this Court  on August  21, 1995  had  passed  the  following order;      "Counsel for  the  petitioner  says      that  the   petitioner   does   not      require payment  of back-wages  but      his  due   seniority   is   to   be      considered according  to rules. The      3rd respondent  was only  a  senior      stenographer from Govt. service and      was  on   deputation.   While   the      petitioner is  a  regular  employee      and is  entitled to  be considered,      when   the    vacancy   of   Public      Relations Officer  had  arisen,  he      was not considered, Since he Single      Judge  has   given  the   direction      correctly, the  Division Bench  was      not right  in upsetting  that order      from the  date on  which he was due      to be  considered. In  view of  the      fact that  he is  not claiming  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    arrears and  the 5th respondent has      retired  from  service,  notice  is      issued to  the State  as to why the      petitioner’s seniority  should  not      be taken  from the  date  when  the      vacancy as P.R.O. had arisen and he      was due  for consideration  but was      not considered  along with  the 5th      respondent".      Counter-affidavit has  been  filed  by  the  respondent contending that  appellant’s seniority  was considered  with effect from  the date  when the vacancy had arisen after the retirement of  the  5th  respondent.  The  above  action  is obviously illegal  and an  arm twist  to nepotism.  When the appellant was  a regular candidate as Office Superintendent, he was  entitled to  be  considered  in  preference  to  the deputationist, who is not a member of the service as on that date. He  was wrongly  denied of  his legitimate right to be considered  for   appointment  on  the  date  when  the  5th respondent was  appointed. It  is, therefore,  directed that the appellant  must be  considered to  have  been  regularly appointed with  effect  from  the  date  on  which  the  5th respondent was  promoted as P.R.O. and in terms of the order passed by  this Court.  His entitlement  would be considered according to  the rules within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the order.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.