The court directed the respondent authority to consider and decide a representation filed by the petitioner regarding her promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

Order On Board

1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 5/10/2018 (Annexure P/1) bearing No.F 4-08/2018/18 passed by the respondent No.1, in respect of the respondent No.7.

ii. to That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and grant her promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector from the date of her actual entitlement with all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits.

iii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

iv. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially petitioner was appointed to the post of Sanitary Daroga under respondent No. 2 vide order dated 25.2.2009. He further submits that according to service rules, petitioner is eligible and entitled for promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector and her name was recommended by Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Dipka in its resolution dated 23.2.2017 but till date, no decision has been taken yet and name of respondent No. 7 is being considered for the promoted post. He contends that respondent authorities may be directed to consider the name of petitioner for promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector.

3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They submit that requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Sanitary Inspector are B.Sc. Degree in Biology subject from any recognized university and Diploma in Sanitary Inspector course from any recognized institute whereas petitioner is a graduate in arts stream therefore her name was not considered for promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector. They further submit that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

4) At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to make a detailed representation before respondent No. 2 in light of recommendation dated 23.2.2017.

5) Heard.

6) Taking into consideration the limited grievance of the petitioner, this petition is hereby being disposed reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to prefer a representation within period of 45 days from today before respondent No. 2, who in turn is directed to consider and decide such representation within further period of 90 days.

7) With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.