The method of recruitment to the post of Class III must be supported by the number of posts or cadre strength to avoid discrimination and violation of constitutional provisions.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.

Despite issuing orders from time to time respondents could not apprise this Court as to how many vacancies were notified or cadre strength of Class III post so as to take note of respective quotas for direct recruitment, in-service competitive examination and promotion. The present case is relating to promotion quota to the extent of 25% and method of recruitment to the post of Class III was notified on 11.02.1985. However, resolution dated 11.02.1985 is consisting only method of recruitment to the post of Class III to the extent of 50% direct recruitment, 25% in-service candidate through examination and 25% promotion and it is not supported by number of posts or cadre strength of the Class III post in order to ascertain how many posts were earmarked for promotion under 25% quota. From perusal of method of promotion it appears the source cadre is from Class IV employees. Class IV employees are consisting of four sources. One of these sources is Treasure Guard which carries higher pay-scale than the other three source cadre. Therefore, we are of the view that combined seniority list should have been prepared while placing the Treasure Guard on the top who are in the higher payscale than the other three sources. We have perused the seniority list of Treasure Guard in which appellant-Shri Radhey Pandey name appears at Serial No. 9. It is also learnt that upto Serial No. 5 in Orderly/Chowkidar/Sweeper cadre have been granted promotion to Class III even though Orderly/Chowkidar/Sweeper cadre carries lesser pay-scale than the Treasure Guard, therefore, infirmity is evident that pick and choose method has been adopted while granting promotion. It is submitted that from the year 1990 onwards no promotion to Class III post has been effected by the department. On the other hand, there was no bar for effecting promotion, such bar came into existence by means of resolution dated 22.11.1995. In other words, method of recruitment to Class III post cited (supra) would be invoked up to 22.11.1995. Respondents could not apprise this Court between 11.02.1985 to 22.11.1995, how many vacancies accrued and how many vacancies were filled up under the 25% quota and other quotas also.

2. From perusal of resolution dated 22.11.1995 produced as Annexure-B, it is evident that all Class III post had been kept dormant (abolish), however, without amending the resolution dated 11.02.1985 which provides for filing up post of Class III. As long as, 11.02.1985 is not amended in the manner known to the law, in other words necessary amendment should have been brought to the resolution dated 11.02.1985.

3. In fact, in the morning session there were no assistance and matter is taken up in the afternoon. Director-cum-Chief Engineer -Mr. Rajesh Ranjan is present in the Court even he could not lay his hands relating to number of posts available for Class III and further, how many posts were earmarked for promotion under 25% quota and how 25% quota has been operated for the purpose of promotion during the intervening period from 1985 to 22.11.1995.

4. On the other hand, pick and choose method has been resorted as is evident from the record that such of those persons who are in the lower scale in the Class IV employees like Orderly/Chowkidar/Sweeper have been picked up and promoted to Class III whereas Treasure Guard cadre has been totally ignored even though they are better footing than the other Class IV employees with reference to pay-scale attached to the respective post. The appellant is in the cadre of Treasure Guard and it is in higher pay-scale than the other cadres like Orderly/Chowkidar/Sweeper. Therefore, it is a clear case of discrimination and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. At every stage, official respondents have failed to follow the general principles with reference to number of post identified for the purpose of promotion to 25% quota, in not publishing combined seniority list while placing such of those pe