IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Rajesh Kumar Sah – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S) No.7111 of 2019
Decided On : 09-07-2020
Promotion - Consideration of Case - Delay in Promotion
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary from the date when his juniors were promoted, citing unnecessary delay in his promotion despite fulfilling the necessary criteria.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner's case had not been considered despite the promotion of his juniors, and directed the State to consider his case in the next Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting, taking into account the submission of property details by the petitioner.
Issues: Delay in promotion, non-consideration of petitioner's case, submission of property details
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the State to consider the petitioner's case for promotion in line with the rules, regulations, and guidelines, especially considering that his juniors had already been promoted and the petitioner had submitted the required property details.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State to consider the petitioner's case in the next DPC meeting.
ORDER :
Heard Mr. Prashant Pallava, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anis Khan, AC to GP-IV appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary on and from the date when his juniors were given promotion with effect from 11.01.2016. The further prayer is made for a direction to give the consequential benefit to the petitioner as attached to the post of Deputy Secretary with effect from 11.01.2016 as the juniors to the petitioner were promoted to the post.
4. Mr. Prashant Pallava, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was declared successful in 42nd Civil Services Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission and he was selected for Bihar Administrative Service. He submits that the petitioner’s service was confirmed on 20.11.2001 after completion of his probation. He submits that on 24.11.2003 the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha has published the gradation list. The petitioner was given promotion to the post of Under Secretary vide order dated 27.01.2012. The petitioner’s promotion is unnecessarily being delayed without there being any rhymes and reasons. The petitioner approached the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha by filing the representation. The name of the petitioner was not considered in the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting and the juniors to the petitioner in the gradation list have been given promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary with effect from 11.01.2016 which is evident from order dated 11.01.2016 that the officers placed at sl.no.32 to 50 are junior to the petitioner. The petitioner filed representation on 02.07.2019. He submits that the petitioner has got every right for being considered for the post of Deputy Secretary from the date when his juniors were given promotion. The case of the petitioner has not been considered.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent State by way of referring to the counter affidavit submits that the petitioner’s name while considering at sl.no.77, the said DPC made recommendation that due to unavailability of updated property details, not eligible for promotion. He further submits that in the next DPC, the case of the petitioner will be considered.
6. Mr. Pallava, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed rejoinder wherein at paragraph no.5 he has clearly stated that the petitioner has already furnished the property details by letter dated 14.06.2016 and 24.09.2018 contained in Annexure-7 to the rejoinder. He further submits that special DPC may be directed to be called.
7. The Court has perused the Annexure-7 to the rejoinder. Thus, it transpires that the stand of the respondent State is preposterious. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner is fit to be considered for promotion as the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted.
8. The State is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent State in the next DPC meeting in accordance with the rules, regulations and guidelines and considering this aspect of the matter that the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to the said post whereas the petitioner has already submitted the property detail which is evident from Annexure-7 to the rejoinder.
9. With the above observation and direction, the instant writ petition [W.P.(S) No.7111 of 2019] stands disposed of.
10. I.A. if any also stands disposed of.
AI
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.