•Mi.^u^^m^ -•^.^-^. c y^w/^ 7 ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT -BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) (S^f^ OF 2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : ^•<^/ ^y ^- t^'.t&',\' ^ ^ /^m'^ l^ ^. Q^^. SMT. MONALISHA GHOSH W/0 SHRI KALYAN GHOSH, AGED ABOUT - 32 YEARS, EMPLOYED AS - SR. CLERK, SEC RAILWAY, OFFICE OF CMS, RAILWAY HOSPITAL, BMY - CHARODA, RESIDENT OF BUS STAND, G. E. ROAD, BMY - CHARODA - DISTRICT - DURG (CHHATTISGARH) VE RSU S 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH - THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, BILASPUR ZONE, G. M. OFFICE, BILASPUR (C. G.) THE SR. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, RAIPUR DIVISION, DRM OFFICE COMPLEX, RAIPUR ,3. THE CHIEF MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, SOUGH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, RAIPUR DIVISION, RAIPUR 4. SMT. SHIKHA DAS, W/0 NOT - KKNOW, EMPLOYED AS HEAD CLERK, SEC RAILWAY, OFFICE OF CMS, RAILWAY HOSPITAL, BMY - CHARODA. J>^^' ^>^ytJ 6 ^ w 5. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, THROUGH - ITS REGISTRAR, JABALPUR (M. P.) Writ Petition under Article - 226/227 of the Constitution of India. "^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS^ARH AT BILASPUR OIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M.QUODUSI A HON'BLE SHftI N.K. A6A^WAL. JJ. P6TITIONER RESPON&ENTS W.P. (S) N0.6344/2008 Smt. MonQtisha 6hosh Vs Union of India and others Present: Mr. R.K. Kesharwani. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Standing Counsel for the respondent No.l to 3. OftAL ORDER (Passed on 22M July, 2010) I.M Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2008 (Annexure P-11) passed by the respondent No.5 in O.A. No.678/07 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. 3< Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as Senior Clerk in the S.E.C. Railway, was considered for promotion to the post of Head Clerk with other similarly situated employees working as Senior Clerk. The post of Head Clerk was non-selection post, however, the petitioner was found unsuitable and therefore, the next candidate i.e. respondent No.4-Smt. Shikha Das, was empanelled for promotion vide order dated 21.6.2006. Reasons for unsuitability of the petittonerwere that in the year 2005-06 she attended her dyties only for 28 days, whereas in the year 2006-07 she attended only 86 days on the post of Senior Clerk and due to aforesaid conduct of the petitioner there was no annual confidential report of the petitioner for the year 2005-06 as the petitio.ner has worked less than ninety days. Adverse remarks were also K^»3;-5 4.v<-S» "-"^, '"^1:%, '% ^sszih '^ ^ss^^-^ ,, ^r^^ / 1 g. communicated to the petitioner that "she is irregular in attendance and work; and *she does not want to learn", and therefore, she was graded below average in the ACft for the year 2006-07 by the reporting and reviewing authority, 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the tribunal also the promotion order of respondent No.4 was challenged but after perusal of the order dated 21.6.2006, which was under challenge, it is found that the same was order for empanelment of respondent No,4. The objection raised that respondent No.4 has not completed two years at the time of considering her empanelment, but two years experience was not to be considered at that time according to Rule 214 of the ftules fioverning The Promotion Of ^roup 'C' Staff. Rule 214 (c) (i) is quoted thus:- "c. In respect of promotions to non-selection post, the following should be followed:- i.5taff in the immediate lower grade with a mmimum of two years service in that grade will only be eligible for promotion. The service for this purpose includes service, if any rendered on ad hoc posts followed by regular service without any break. The condition of two years service should stand fulfjlled at the time of actual promotion and not necessarily at the stage of consideration." 5. Accordingly, when the respondent No.4 was being considered along with the petitioner. there could not be any condition of two years experience and therefore, she was empanelled because it is not known as to when she was given actual appointment which is neither been annexed nor has been challenged. Further, the criteria for promotion was seniority-cum-suitabiljty and in the order dated 21.6.2006 it has been specifjcally mentioned that name of the petitioner ^•sf"^ has been mentioned first and in the remark it was mentioned that "unsuitable" and thereafter, only name of the respondent No.4, which was at Sr. No.2 and the remark has been mentioned as "suitable", has been empanelled for promotion. However, the petitioner has been promoted subsequently vide order dated 29.6.2007 when she was found suitable for the post of Head Clerk. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we have not found any manifest error of law in the jmpugned order passed by the respondent No.5 warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the result, the writ petition has no substance, the same deserves to be and is hereby djsmissed. No order as to costs. Roshan/- Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge