IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, J.
Umashankar Verma S/o Krishna Verma – Appellant
Versus
Chief Secretary, C. G. Govt. Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh - Respondent
WPS No. 4710 of 2015
Decided on : 21-12-2023
Promotion - Seniority Dispute - Article 226 - [Promotion] - [Seniority Dispute] - [Article 226] - The court discussed the provisions of the general conditions of service, the natural law of justice, and the order passed in a previous case. The court emphasized the importance of seniority in promotions and the obligation to consider the senior-most person for promotion before junior employees. The court also highlighted the need for compliance with service conditions and rules, and the role of the State Public Service Commission in deciding the legal right of promotion/appointment of senior employees within time.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought promotion to the post of Registrar, claiming seniority over other employees who were promoted before him. The petitioner alleged discrimination and non-compliance with previous court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's promotion was granted in compliance with the previous court order, and his seniority was duly considered. The court dismissed the petition, stating that it lacked merit.
Issues: Seniority dispute, compliance with previous court orders, discrimination in promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of seniority in promotions and the obligation to consider the senior-most person for promotion before junior employees. The court also highlighted the need for compliance with service conditions and rules, and the role of the State Public Service Commission in deciding the legal right of promotion/appointment of senior employees within time.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as lacking merit.
ORDER :
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:
(ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to give instruction to Respondents No. 1 to 3 consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Registrar like the respondents No. 4 and 5 and give seniority and balance payments from the date of promotion as given in writ and release the whole balance payment till the date of Retirement of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, the Petitioner's Joining in Education Department on 01.09.1973 and his date of Birth is 01.01.1954 and he was promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-1 on 29.01.2005. So he should be promoted on the post of Registrar from 14.06.2015. According to the general condition of service and as per the provision of the condition of S.No. 8, he is entitled to get the promotion for the post of Registrar 14.06.2015 like V.K. Pandey and Shri G.L. Namdeo. Shri V.K. Pandey joined in the education department on 17.07.1981 and his date of birth is 21.07.1957 and he was promoted on the post Assistant Grade on 29.01.2005 and promoted for the post of Registrar on 14.06.2015 by the respondents, although they are junior then the petitioner, his case should be considered for the promotion on the post of Registrar from 14.06.2015.
3. Shri G.L. Namdeo Joined in education department on 19.10.1981 and his date of birth is 04.06.1955 he was promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-1 on 29.01.2005. He was promoted for the post of Registrar on 14.06.2015 although he junior then the petitioner. According to the above information the petitioner is the Senior then V.K. Pandey and G.L. Namdeo. The Respondents ignored the seniority of the petitioner and promoted to Shri V.K. Pandey and Shri G.L. Namdeo vide order dated 14.06.2015 issued by Under Secretary, Higher Education Department without following the notification dated 16.11.2007 issued by the Deputy Secretary and the directions issued by the Respondents. In this way the injustice prevailed with the senior most petitioner in the post of Assistant Grade-1 and he had not given promotion for the post of Registrar by above Respondents.
4. According to the order passed by this Court in WP (S) No. 224/2011 on 11.01.2013 in the matter of “Umashankar Verma v. Chief Secretary, Higher Education C.G. Govt. Raipur & other” the Respondents shall hold review D.P.C. to consider the claim of petitioner for grant of promotion on the post Accountant in the light of observation made by the court as expeditiously as possible. On the basis of the said order, review DPC was held on 06.05.2015. The Petitioner's name put in the seniority list No. 4 in place of 30 of old seniority list. The order passed by this Court in Annexure A-4 on 11.01.2013 was implemented by the Respondent No.1 and 2 after the lapse of 2 years. In this way the Respondent's No. 1 and 2 deliberately not followed the order passed in Annexure4, it shows the clear discrimination with the petitioner. This should be removed by the worthy order of this Court in the interest of justice with the Petitioner.
5. Shri V.K. Pandey and Shri V. K. Namdeo is junior then the petitioner and promoted both the person for the post of the Registrar vide order dated 24.06.2015 issued by the Under Secretary, which is also illegal, because they have not considered the petitioner's promotion for the post of Registrar being a senior employee in comparison of the above both employees. Therefore, his promotion should be considered for the post of Registrar by the precious order of this Court in the interest of justice. According to Annexure A-1 dated 01.04.2014 at Sl.No. 6 and 7. Th
The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotion decisions are based on seniority-cum-merit and the application of relevant rules, specifically the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Prom....
Promotions take effect from the date granted, not from the date of vacancy, and retrospective seniority cannot be assigned.
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and denial of timely consideration constitutes a violation of these rights.
Promotion in non-selection posts must adhere to seniority without subjective merit evaluations in the absence of unsuitability, reinforcing equality rights under the Constitution.
No vested right to promotion exists if the position was downgraded before approval, despite eligibility.
Failure to pass mandatory departmental examination renders employee ineligible for gazetted promotion despite seniority, adhoc service, or pre-retirement DPC; no right to regular/notional promotion o....
The punishment of 'censure' cannot be used as a ground for denial of promotion, and delay and latches cannot be pleaded against the petitioner.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.