Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court adjudicated a service law dispute between a regular employee and a deputationist over promotion to the post of Public Relations Officer in the Jammu Development Authority. The appellant, Jai Ram Sharma, was appointed on a regular basis as Office Superintendent, while the fifth respondent, P.N. Jalla, was on deputation as a senior stenographer from government service. When a vacancy for Public Relations Officer arose, the appellant claimed he was due for consideration for promotion on a regular basis. However, the authority considered and promoted the deputationist instead. The appellant challenged this action by way of a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir. A Single Judge of the High Court ruled in his favour, but the Division Bench, in LPA No.77 of 1990 by judgment dated February 10, 1995, upset that order. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by special leave. On August 21, 1995, the Supreme Court passed an interim order noting that the appellant did not require payment of back-wages but sought due seniority according to rules. The Court observed that the third respondent was only a senior stenographer on deputation, whereas the appellant was a regular employee entitled to be considered for the vacancy. Notice was issued to the State to show cause why the appellant's seniority should not be taken from the date the vacancy arose. In response, the respondent filed a counter-affidavit contending that the appellant's seniority was considered with effect from the date the vacancy arose after the retirement of the fifth respondent. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the action was obviously illegal and an arm twist to nepotism. The Court reasoned that when the appellant was a regular candidate as Office Superintendent, he was entitled to be considered in preference to a deputationist who was not a member of the service on that date. The appellant was wrongly denied his legitimate right to be considered for appointment on the date when the fifth respondent was appointed. Consequently, the Court directed that the appellant be considered to have been regularly appointed with effect from the date on which the fifth respondent was promoted as Public Relations Officer, and that his entitlement be considered according to the rules within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs. The judgment affirmed the principle that regular employees have a preferential right to be considered for promotion over deputationists who are not members of the service.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion and Seniority - Regular Employee vs Deputationist - Not mentioned (Act) - The appellant, a regular Office Superintendent, claimed consideration for promotion to Public Relations Officer when a vacancy arose; instead, the respondent promoted a deputationist. The Supreme Court held that a regular employee is entitled to be considered in preference to a deputationist who is not a member of the service, and denial of such consideration was illegal and an act of nepotism; directed that the appellant be treated as regularly appointed from the date the deputationist was promoted and that his entitlement be considered according to rules within three months. Held that the respondent's action was illegal and contrary to service norms. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a regular employee (Office Superintendent) was entitled to be considered for promotion to Public Relations Officer in preference to a deputationist, and whether denial of seniority from the date the vacancy arose was illegal.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; appellant directed to be considered regularly appointed with effect from the date on which the 5th respondent was promoted as Public Relations Officer, and entitlement to be considered according to rules within three months from receipt of order; no costs.
Law Points
- Regular employee entitled to consideration for promotion in preference to deputationist
- deputationist not member of service
- denial of legitimate right to consideration is illegal and nepotistic
- seniority to be reckoned from date vacancy arose when regular employee was due for consideration
