Experience on a post depends on duties performed, not the capacity in which the post is held.

The petitioner, appointed as a Library Clerk, claimed that the post was equivalent to Routine Clerk in pay scale and duties. He had performed administrative and accounting duties, was given charge as Office Superintendent, and was recommended for promotion after a selection process. Although the college issued a promotion order on 20 November 2015 and he took charge on 23 November 2015, he continued to receive a clerk’s salary

After the petitioner’s earlier writ petition resulted in a direction to decide his representation, the authorities rejected approval of the promotion because he had not been appointed as a Routine Grade Clerk and therefore lacked the required ten years’ experience on that post

The petitioner challenged that rejection; respondent no. 4 filed no counter-affidavit

Whether experience as a Library Clerk, while performing duties equivalent to those of a Routine Clerk, could satisfy the requirement of experience “on the post” for promotion to Office Superintendent

Whether the denial of approval could stand where the petitioner had performed the relevant duties and had been recommended for promotion through the selection process

Clause 20.06(1) of the First Statutes of Agra University provides the qualification for promotion to Office Superintendent, including a requirement of ten years’ experience on the post of Routine Clerk or Assistant

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmishankar Mishra, 1979 (2) SCC 270, the Supreme Court held that, absent a rule distinguishing between substantive and officiating service, “working on the post” concerns performing its duties and functions, not the capacity in which the post is held

The Court noted that the petitioner’s service book, which the Standing Counsel did not dispute, showed that he performed administrative and accounting duties commensurate with those of a Routine Clerk

Applying Laxmishankar Mishra, the Court held that the relevant inquiry was the work performed, rather than the petitioner’s formal appointment title. The authority’s reliance solely on the fact that he was appointed as a Library Clerk did not justify rejecting his experience or the promotion approval

It directed respondent no. 2 to consider approval of the petitioner’s promotion to Office Superintendent and to provide the consequential benefits permissible for that post, including arrears of salary with reasonable interest as determined by the authorities

The petition was allowed