:^-"yas-a~ °€. sai— 1^-i1 "\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0.2292 OF 2006 Ku. Kamla Choudhary, D/o Shri Laljee Choudhary, aged about 41 years, Assistant Grade - II, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Excise Department, Raipur (CG). Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Excise Department Ministry, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Excise Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur (CG). 3. Assistant Excise Commissioner, Shiv Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 4. Smt. Sarla Gautam, W/o Shri Bisambhar Singh Gautam, aged about 45 years, Accountant, Excise Commissioner Office, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri N.K. Vyas, counsel forthe respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 16th day of IVIarch, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to promote the petitioner from the date the reserved quota on the post of Accountant was vacant as per the reservation rules. The petitioner further seeks a direction to declare the promotion of the respondent No.4 on the post of Assistant Grade - II w.e.f. 1996 as illegal. The petitioner also seeks a direction that the petitioner may be granted seniority over and above the respondent No.4, as the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Grade -II in the month ofAugust, 1998 while the respondent No.4 has joined as Assistant Grade - II in the month of September, 1998. / / -> ^ 3) The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that as per the seniority list ofAssistant Grade - II as on 1-4-2002 (Annexure - R4/5) the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 1-9-1989 and the respondent No.4 was appointed on 1-9-1978. The petitioner was, thereafter, promoted w.e.f. 7-8-1998 and the respondent No.4 was promoted w.e.f. 3-6-1996 on the post of Assistant Grade - II. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.4 on the basis that she was earlier promoted w.e.f. 7-8-1998 on the post ofAssistant Grade - II and the respondent No.4 was promoted subsequently, but w.e.f. 3-6-1996, thus, the petitioner be granted seniority over and above the respondent No.4. 4) The respondent No.4 could not be promoted in the year1996,as her annual confidential reports were not available. The respondent No.4 submitted a representation before the authorities concerned against her non-promotion. After consideration of the representation, the respondent No.4 was granted promotion and by order dated 20-4-2000 (Annexure - R4/3) the respondent No.4 was granted seniority from the date Shri Rajmal Modi was granted promotion on the post of Assistant Grade - II i.e. w.e.f. 3-6-1996. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition. 5) During pendency of this petition, the petitioner was promoted on the post ofAccountant pursuant to DPC held on 31-10-2002 by order dated 16- 1-2009. The petitioner was also granted seniority on the post ofAccountant just below the respondent No.4. 6) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 7) On perusal of the seniority list (Annexure - R4/5), it is evident that the petitioner joined on the post of Lower Division Clerk much after the respondent No.4, as the respondent No.4 entered into the service on 1-9-1978 and the petitioner entered into the service on 1-9-1989. Thus, the respondent No.4 was senior to the petitioner. Accordingly, the promotion was granted to the respondent No.4 before the date of promotion of the petitioner. Thus, the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner was senior to the respondent No.4 is contrary to records and deserves to be dismissed. Since the case of the respondent No.4 could not be considered in the year 1996, the question asto whether the respondent No.4 was fit or unfit does not arise, as for want of availability of annual confidential reports the case of the respondent No.4 was not considered. When it was considered on the representation of the respondent No.4 and after examined the ACRs, the respondent No.4 was granted notional promotion w.e.f. 3-6-1996, therefore, grant ofseniority to the respondent No.4 above the petitioner is just and proper. The subsequent promotion on the post of Accountant was also accordingly granted. The seniority was granted to the petitidner as well as the respondent No.4 on the basis of their seniority in the post of Lower Division Clerk, thereafter on the post ofAssistant Grade - II and further promotion on the post ofAccountant was granted. 8) In view of the foregoing, the petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge s