Srinagar: The J&K High Court has expressed its displeasure over the “brazen violation” of its observations about adhocism and stop-gap promotions of engineers in Public Works Department(PWD) and has asked its Commissioner Secretary to explain its position by March 25.
“We record our displeasure over the brazen violation of the observations made by this court from time to time while dealing with the grievance regarding stop-gap and in-charge promotions,” a division bench of Justices Hasnain Massodi and Dhiraj Singh Thakur said.
The bench was hearing an appeal filed by 13 Engineers against a single bench order, allowing a petition by five Superintendent Engineers challenging government order regarding promotion on adhoc basis of their counterparts.
On last date of hearing, the division bench had directed the state to file the latest report regarding regular process undertaken to appoint the incumbents on the post of Assistant Engineers, Assistant Executive Engineers, Executive Engineers, Superintendent Engineers and Chief Engineers.
“The status report filed by (concerned authorities) is disappointing as much as no concrete steps appear to have been undertaken to end adhocism in the department. The report makes reference to various orders passed a few years back related to isolated cases of promotion on substantive basis,” the bench said, adding, “It is a matter of concern that commissioner secretary PWD department is oblivious to disapproval made by the court in various writ petitions from time to time regarding need to end adhocism, avoid stop-gap promotions and make promotions on substantive basis.”
Latest in this regard, court observed, is an order on February 28, 2014 wherein a few incharge Executive Engineers R&B Department have been placed as incharge Superintendent Engineers.
“Commissioner Secretary PWD shall explain disregard shown to such observations by or before next date of hearing,” the court said, posted the case on March 25.
The appeal has been directed against the single bench order, criticizing government for continuing adhoc arrangements in government departments including R&B.
“It is not known as to what are the compelling reasons for government to continue adhocism for indefinite period in violation of Supreme Court judgment,” the single bench had observed.
“Government has not registered seriousness of the matter and it has become routine for the government to violate the rules and judgments of the court.”
The Court had directed state government not make any arrangements against the posts of AEE, EE, SE and CE on adhoc / in-charge basis.
“It has long since been settled that an officiating promotion cannot be made without the consultation of the PSC for a period of more than six months,” the order had said.