JUDGMENT
R.K. Merathia, J.
Page 1068
1. Petitioner filed this writ petition for direction on the respondents to promote him to the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Productivity) (DCIF (P) for short) as he has been performing all the duties of such post and was only eligible person Page 0169 having requisite qualification for such post, which was also lying vacant for a long time.
2. Mr. B.P. Pandey, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is in service for 25 years but he has not been granted his due promotion. He submitted that petitioner is B.Sc. (Engg.) Production. Relying on certain orders of Patna High Court, he submitted that though the said orders were passed in the matters of transfer but this Court observed that Government may be well advised to give posting befitting academic qualification. He further submitted that the post of DCIF (P) has been renamed as “Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Dumka” and petitioner being the only person having the qualification of Production Engineering, should be posted on the said post.
3. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that petitioner has been changing his stand from time to time as it suits Mm. He further submitted that when he was transferred to the post of Productivity Officer, he challenged the said transfer by filing writ petition, and pursuant to the order passed therein he filed a representation (Annexure-13) saying inter alia that he has been working and was always treated as Inspector of Factories. State counsel further submitted that now there is no post of productivity. He lastly submitted that the claim of petitioner for promotion can be considered only after considering the claim of other person, who are senior to him in cadre.
4. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner objected to the said transfer, also on the ground that there was no sanctioned post for Production Officer at the transferred place. Petitioner was appointed as Productivity Officer but he was made to work as Inspector of Factories, to which he had no choice. He further submitted that the said representation of petitioner was rejected and he was posted as Productivity Officer on the ground that he had qualification of Production Engineering. He further submitted that in any event the said things said objecting to the transfer, are not relevant for deciding this case. He further submitted that the interpretation put forward by the respondents to the notification dated 6.3.2006 (Annexure-A to the supplementary affidavit filed on 31.8.2000), is not correct.
5. In view of the said submissions, the only question to be decided in this case is whether the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Production) has been abolished by the said notification dated 6.3.2006 or it still continues in a different name?.
6. In paragraph ‘Kha’ of the said notification dated 6.3.2006, it is inter alia said that post of “Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Ranchi”, will be known as “Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Dumka” after conversion and transfer of the said post. In paragraph ‘Ga’, it is said that after converting the post of Productivity in general category, all the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories and the Inspector of Factories will perform all the work relating to productivity.
7. In my opinion, if clauses ‘Kha’ and ‘Ga’ are read together, it will mean that separate post of productivity has been abolished in Jharkhand. It has been merged with general category and all the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories and Inspector of Factories are required to perform all the duties with regard to productivity.
Page 0170
8. The argument of Mr. Pandey that if this interpretation is given, it will mean that all the Deputy Chief inspector of Factories and Inspector of Factories have now become one category of “Productivity”, as all of them are required to look after the duty relating to productivity, also cannot be accepted in view of clause ‘Ga’ which clearly says that the post of productivity has been converted into the general category.
9. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the post of “Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Production)” has been abolished and it has not been renamed as “Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Dumka”. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.