Back
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Biswanath Somadder, W. Diengdoh, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Kumar Keshab Kalita - Respondent
WA No. 58 of 2017
Decided On : 01-10-2021
Promotion - Assam Rifles - Assam Rifles Recruitment Amendment Rules, 2009 - Map Reading Standard II, Technical Trade Test I, II, III - Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Rifleman General Duty, sought promotion to Naib Subedar SKT (Engineer) in the Assam Rifles. He claimed that despite meeting the eligibility criteria, he was denied the opportunity for promotion due to the failure of the authorities to send him for required tests.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was not eligible for promotion at the time of consideration by the DPC in 2009. The court sympathized with the respondent but could not grant the relief sought in full. It directed the authorities to consider the respondent for promotion when a vacancy arises, without retrospective effect.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of promotion to the respondent despite meeting the eligibility criteria and the subsequent direction by the court regarding the consideration for promotion without retrospective effect.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the respondent was wronged, any compensation for the wrongdoing should be pursued through a competent Civil Court for quantification of damages. The court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not extend to quantifying damages.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order were modified to allow the respondent to approach a competent Civil Court for damages if promoted, and the authorities were directed to consider the respondent for promotion without delay.
JUDGMENT
Biswanath Somadder, CJ. - This appeal arises in respect of a judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge on 20th May, 2014, in WP(C) 358 of 2010 (Kumar Keshab Kalita v. Union of India & others).
The appellants before us are the Union of India, the Director General, Assam Rifles and two other authorities of Assam Rifles.
By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition in part, with certain directions. Before we proceed to dwell upon the impugned judgment and order, the brief facts of the instant case are required to be taken note of:-
The respondent/writ petitioner was enrolled on 21st December, 1985, as Rifleman General Duty (Rfn/GD) and thereafter, remustered to the post of Havildar Store Keeper Technical (Engineer) in the month of August, 1997. The next promotional post of Havildar Store Keeper Technical (Engineer) is Naib Subedar SKT (Engineer). It is an admitted case of the parties that as per the Assam Rifles Recruitment Amendment Rules, 2009, a new recruitment process has been implemented for promotion from the post of Havildar Store Keeper Technical (Engineer) to Naib Subedar SKT (Engineer). The post of Naib Subedar SKT (Engineer) is a cent per cent promotional post, and the Havildar Store Keeper Technical (Engineer) having minimum service of 5 (five) years as Havildar Store Keeper Technical (Engineer) together with a total of 18 (eighteen) years of service and passed Map Reading Standard II and Technical Trade Test I is eligible for promotion. It is stated that the respondent/writ petitioner had successfully completed Map Reading Standard II and also successfully completed the Technical Trade Test II. It is further case of the respondent/writ petitioner that inspite of successfully completed the Technical Trade Test III as early as 2003, he was not sent for undergoing Technical Trade Test II. It may be pertinent to mention that for undergoing Technical Trade Test I, the concerned Havildar Store Keeper Technical (Engineer) should have successfully completed firstly the Technical Trade Test III and secondly, Technical Trade Test II. The respondent/writ petitioner had successfully completed the Technical Trade Test II on 22nd March, 2010, and also completed the Technical Trade Test I on 22nd June, 2010.
It is the further case of the respondent/writ petitioner that he was denied the opportunity of undergoing Technical Trade Test II while his juniors had been deputed for undergoing Technical Trade Test I and as a result, further promotion to the post of Naib Subedar SKT (Engineer) was denied to him. The respondent/writ petitioner had filed many representations to the concerned authority for sending him to undergo Technical Trade Test II and I. In support of this fact, the respondent/writ petitioner also annexed the copies of the representations. It is a fact that at the time of holding the DPC on 15th July, 2009, the respondent/writ petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of Naib Subedar SKT (Engineer).
Before deciding the matter finally, the learned Single Judge called for filing of affidavits and the stand of the respondents before the writ Court (being the appellants herein), as spelt out in the impugned judgment and order, reads thus;
“5. The respondents filed joint affidavit-in-opposition wherein, had clearly stated that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the pot of Naib Subedar SKT (Engineer) at the time of holding the DPC on 15.07.2009. The respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition further stated that the petitioner will be promoted to the next higher rank of Naib Subedar SKT (Engineer) in his turns subject to availability of vacancy. This Court vide order dated 18.03.2014 directed the respondents to file additional affidavit mentioning the particulars of the vacancies in the post of Naib Subedar SKT (Engineer) arising after the last DPC i.e. 15.07.2009.
6. The respondents filed joint additional affidavit dated 01.05.2014 wherei
The court clarified that its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not extend to quantifying damages for wrongdoing, and any such claims should be pursued through a compete....
Continuing wrong in promotion denial causing recurring seniority/financial loss overrides delay/laches; backdated promotion for seniority granted without arrears, extending parity to eligible overloo....
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, but there is no absolute right to promotion itself, which becomes effective only upon assumption of duties.
An employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, but not a right to retrospective promotion unless clearly justified by rules or exceptional circumstances.
Entitlement to promotion against a specific vacancy year is contingent upon a junior's promotion preceding the claimant's promotion.
Promotions in public service are prospective and take effect from the date duties are assumed, not from earlier dates, emphasizing a distinction between the right to be considered for promotion and t....
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
