Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN-68 of 1982, decided on 8th March, 1982.

---S.25-A--Temporarily promoted Assistant Electrical Engineer--Worked continuously for 8 years in that capacity--Denied regular promotion/ confirmation on ground that it was selection post and he could not be given regular promotion or confirmed without selection--No evidence on record to prove that it was a selection post--Held: Employee having practically proved his worth and ability was not responsible if selection was not held.

Qazi Masood Ahmad for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 9th February, 1982.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent was promoted as Assistant Electrical Engineer (D) on 8-7-1974 in R.N.S.P No.1l and was working upto the time he brought grievance petition on 15-7-1980. He as yet has not been confirmed on the said post even though he is working on the said post uptil now for about ten years. He claimed to be confirmed vide letter Exh.P-1. The case of the appellant is that the respondent was promoted temporarily, so no question of confirmation arises, nor any question of completing the probationary period arises.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has set up a new case in his arguments before me which is that the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (D) is selection post and without selection the appellant could not be regularly promoted and since he was only temporarily promoted, the period of probation did not even start. I do not find any force in this argument. Firstly, there is nothing on the record to show that the post held by the respondent is a selection post. No rule has been cited, by him in support of his argument. Secondly, even if this is a selection post, the respondent is not responsible if the Selection Board has not been constituted or it exists and it has not for ten long years held any selection. The case of the learned counsel is not that the Selection Committee held selection and considered the case of the respondent but did not select him. According to policy letter, copy of which is Exh.P-1, all staff except work-charged staff or persons working in temporary projects, who have worked for three years to be confirmed and the posts against which they are 'working made permanent. Selection is made, if there is any such rule of selection to find out whether the incumbent to be promoted is fit and eligible for promotion. Since the person to be promoted has not worked on the next higher post his worth has not been tested, therefore, selection is be made. But when an employee has continuously worked on the post satisfactorily he has practically proved that he is fit for the job. So in such cases selection is only a formality and not to test his worth. Since the respondent is working as Assistant Electrical Engineer for the last 8 years, he has practically proved his worth and ability and if the Selection Committee is not holding selection for reasons best known to it, the respondent is not in his least responsibility. There is no allegation that he has been found not upto the mark. If it had been so, he would have been reverted long ago.

3. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, for which interference may be called for. No force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine. '

M. I.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.