JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest from the date his juniors were considered and also from the date when he became entitled for the same. Further prayer has been made to consider the case of the petitioner for notional promotion from the post of Range Forest Officer to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in the scale of Rs.9300-34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400.

3. As per the factual matrix the petitioner was appointed to the post of Range Officer of Forest on 26.02.1985 under Scheduled Caste Category in the Department of Forest. After his appointment, petitioner served with the Department for 36 long years on the same post on which he was appointed without even a single promotion/financial upgradation i.e. ACP/MACP. It is the specific case of the petitioner that two vigilance cases bearing Nos. 12/1995 and 19/1995 respectively, pertaining to insecticide matters are pending in the Court of Special Judge (ACB, Palamau at Daltonganj), but neither any formal charge-sheet has been submitted nor charges have been framed and the matter is pending since last 25 years. It is the case of the petitioner that juniors to him namely, Sushil Oraon and Mangal Kashyap, against whom also the vigilance cares are pending, have already been granted promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest way back on 10.01.2013 vide notification no. 90, with a stipulation that promotion will be subject to outcome of the vigilance case.

4. Since neither promotion has been granted nor the case of the petitioner has been considered and juniors to him against whom vigilance cases were also registered and pending have already been promoted, the petitioner has rushed to this Court for redressal of his grievances.

5. Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner studiously argues that the action of the respondents shows malic intention and frivolous act of pick and choose method which has been adopted by the respondents while considering the case of others and rejecting the case of petitioner. Learned counsel submits that even charges have not been framed against petitioner and the criminal case is pending since last 25 years. Learned counsel further argues that the case of the petitioner for consideration by way of adhoc promotion was also recommended by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on 16.10.2016 but inspite of the same, the respondent-State has denied the promotion to the petitioner.

6. To buttress her arguments learned counsel places heavy reliance on the following judgments:

(I) State of Jharkhand Vs. Vinod Mani Diwakar & Ors. [2010 (2) JLJR 89]

(II) Union of India and Ors. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Ors. [(1991) 4 SCC 109]; &

(III) State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal [(1995) 2 SCC 570].

7. On the other hand, Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner’s case was not considered as a criminal case was pending against him and till finalization of the criminal case, petitioner is not entitled for any regular promotion. However, since counter-affidavit has not been filed, he is not in a position to justify the stand of the petitioner regarding promotion of similarly situated persons or even juniors.

8. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, promotion is not a right of an employee but there is always a right of consideration. In the instant case pick and choose method has been adopted which cannot be overlooked. Similarly situated persons and even juniors to the petitioner, have been considered and granted promotion but the case of