SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Cal) 397

High Court Of Calcutta
Monoranjan Mallick
DOLLY MUKHERJEE - Appellant
Versus
TRUSTEES - Respondent
Matter 1424  Of  1986
Decided On : 10/07/1988

The Recruitment Rules of the Indian Museum, which prescribed Deputy Keeper (Archaeology) as the sole feeder post for promotion to Keeper (Archaeology), were not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

INDIAN MUSEUM RECRUITMENT RULES - DEPUTY KEEPER (NUMISMATICS AND EPIGRAPHY) - PROMOTION TO KEEPER (ARCHAEOLOGY) - FEEDER POST - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - ARBITRARINESS - ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Deputy Keeper (Numismatics and Epigraphy) in the Archaeology Section of the Indian Museum, challenged the advertisement for filling up the post of Keeper (Archaeology) by direct recruitment, claiming that the post should be filled by promoting her as she was the senior most Deputy Keeper in the Archaeology Section and was officiating as Keeper (Archaeology) since October 1985.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Recruitment Rules of the Indian Museum prescribed Deputy Keeper (Archaeology) as the sole feeder post for promotion to Keeper (Archaeology), and the petitioner, being Deputy Keeper (Numismatics and Epigraphy), was not eligible for promotion to the post.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, being Deputy Keeper (Numismatics and Epigraphy), was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Keeper (Archaeology) by virtue of her seniority and experience in the Archaeology Section? 2. Whether the Recruitment Rules, which prescribed Deputy Keeper (Archaeology) as the sole feeder post for promotion to Keeper (Archaeology), were arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner, not being Deputy Keeper (Archaeology), could not claim a legal right to be considered for promotion to the post of Keeper (Archaeology) as the post held by her was not the feeder post for the appointment of Keeper (Archaeology). 2. The court declined to interpret the Recruitment Rules in a manner that would include the petitioner's post as a feeder post for promotion to Keeper (Archaeology), as the Rules, as they stood, did not provide for such an interpretation. 3. The court held that the petitioner's application for the post of Keeper (Archaeology) in response to the advertisement showed that she had a reasonable chance of being appointed to the post on the basis of her merits.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Keeper (Archaeology) by virtue of her seniority and experience in the Archaeology Section, and that the Recruitment Rules were not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

MONORANJAN MALLICK, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner Mrs. Dolly Mukherjee who is Deputy Keeper (Numismatic and Epigraphy) in the Archaeology Section of the Indian Museum since 1979 claims that she has been officiating as Keeper of (Archaeology) since 18th April 1985.

( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by the advertisement for the filling up of the post of Keeper (Archaeology) in the Indian Museum by direct recruitment, the petitioner has moved this writ petition challenging the authority and/or power and/or jurisdiction of the Respondents being The Trustees of the Indian Museum and the Director, Indian Museum to issue such advertisement in as much as the statutory rules relating to the appointment of the post of Keeper (Archaeology) -provides for recruitment by promotion failing which by direct recruitment. The petitioner submits that the post of Keeper - (Archaeology) should be filled up by promoting her as she is the Senior most Deputy Keeper in the Archaeology Section and is also officiating as Keeper (Archaeology) since October 1985.

( 3 ) SHE claims to fulfil all the qualifications required. under the Recruitment Rules being the senior most Deputy Keeper in the Archaeology Section.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to her the Respondents have arbitrarily decided to fill up the post of Keeper (Archaeology) by direct recruitment in the breach of the rules and ignoring the legitimate claims of the petitioner. She submits that on or about 12th February 1986 the petitioner made representations to the Director of Indian Museum for the promotion to the post of Keeper (Archaeology) as she qualises all the requirements for appointment to the said post. The petitioner has not received any reply to that representation, that on or about 23rd May 1986 an advertisement appeared in the statement for recruitment to the post of Keeper (Archaeology) of the said Museum and similar advertisement also appeared in Ananda Bazar Patrika, dated 21st May, 1986, that thereafter on or about 16th June 1986 the petitioner without prejudice to her rights and contentions made an application for the post of Keeper Archaeology and in fact the petitioner was constrained to make the application out of fear of not being considered at all in the event of the present petitioner's contention failing, that by making the said application the petitioner has never intended to waive her statutory right under the said recruitment rules and that the respondents have acted contrary to the recruitment rules by purporting to fill up the post of Keeper (Archaeology) by ignoring to consider the case of the petitioner by promotion.

( 5 ) THE petitioner further states that if it is contended by the Respondents that as the nomenclature of the post from which promotion is to be made to the post of Keeper (Archaeology) does not tally with that the petitioner is holding and for that reason only the right of the petitioner for being considered for promotion to the post of Keeper (Archaeology) is taken away in that case the said rule is wholly contrary to and/or inconsistent with the provisions contained under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner submits that in the Archaeology Section of the Indian Museum there are three posts of Deputy Keeper, namely, one for Archaeology, one for Numismatics and Epigraphy and one for pre-history and for administrative reasons the three posts of Deputy Keeper have been differently named and in fact all these three posts are the posts of Deputy Keeper in the Archaeology Section of the said Museum. It is also contended that the recruitment rules also refer to the deputy Keeper (Archaeology) on the feeder post in a broad sense in as much as while referring to the post from which promotion is to be given to the post of Keeper (Archaeology) that has been stated that Deputy Keeper (Archaeology) should have at least five years of experience in the grade and by use of the word Grade in the said Rules the three posts of Deputy Keeper in the Archaeology Division h















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top