JUDGMENT
Anil Dev Singh, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the
learned single Judge dated October 9, 2001 in
C.W.P.No. 1945/1992 whereby the claim of the appellant for
promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Animal Husbandry)
in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 3,000-4,500 w.e.f. August 30,
1989, the date prior to the promotion of the fifth respondent
as Deputy Director (Floriculture), was rejected. The facts
giving rise to the appeal are as follows:-
2. On 15th May, 1979, the appellant was appointed as
Assistant Project Officer (Vet.) in District Rural
Development Agency, (for short ‘D.R.D.A.’) in the pay scale of
Rs. 550-900, whereas the fifth respondent was appointed as
Extension Officer (Agriculture) in D.R.D.A. on July 1, 1976 in
the lower scale of Rs. 425-700. Subsequently, with effect
from November 1, 1982, the fifth respondent was promoted as
Agricultural Officer in the grade of Rs. 550-900. On July 1
1984, the fifth respondent was placed in the grade of
Rs. 650-1200. Thereafter, on July 1, 1984 the fifth
respondent was appointed as Deputy Director in the pay scale
of Rs. 2,200-4,000. Finally, on January 29, 1991, the
Governing Body decided to grant him pay-scale of
Rs. 3000-4500.
3. The appellant allowed the fifth respondent to steal a
march over him as he did not question his promotions and
appointments in higher posts or grades by invoking legal
remedies available to him.
4. In the year 1992, D.R.D.A. was wound up and the
appellant and the fifth respondent were absorbed in the
office of Development Commissioner as Veterinary Assistant
Surgeon and Deputy Director (Floriculture) respectively. It
was only in the year 1992 that the appellant woke up and
filed a writ petition seeking promotion to the post of the
Deputy Director w.e.f. August 30, 1989 by drawing parallel
with the case of the fifth respondent. In essence the
appellant seeks to reverse the situation created by the
extinct D.R.D.A. The appellant and the fifth respondent have
been absorbed in the office of the Development Commissioner
in the Capacities in which they were working.
5. Since the appellant was working as Assistant Project
Officer (Vet) in the scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500 (pre-revised)
and the fifth respondent was working as Deputy Director in
the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4,500 (pre-revised) when D.R.D.A.
was wound up, both were to be given posts and grades in the
second respondent organisation equivalent to the ones held by
them in the D.R.D.A. In other words, the appellant as well
as the fifth respondent were to be absorbed in the respondent
organisation against the posts corresponding to the ones they
were holding in the D.R.D.A. Accordingly, the appellant was
absorbed against the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon,
while the fifth respondent was absorbed against the post of
Deputy Director (Floriculture).
6. The learned Single Judge found that there was no
merit in the claim of the appellant for equating his case
with that of the fifth respondent. The learned Single Judge
also noted that the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon is
not in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Deputy
Director. The appellant has not been able to show that the
finding of the learned Single Judge suffers from any
infirmity.
7. In the circumstances, therefore, we do not find any
merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.