^^--^-^^sS^^ c \-,\^^ y-MW ^> ?1^^T~1 ?©e1^^T~^ IN THE H2GH COUR1LQFJUDICATURE AT BZLASPUR C.G. WRIT PETITION No. '-l-'~1^^- / 2005. S.B. PETITZONER :- S.L.DBWANGAN, Aged 53 Yrs., S/0 Late Shri Sakharam Dewangan, By Post, Office Superintendent.Officeof the Home Guard & Civil Defense Headquarter, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) -: VERS US: - RESPONDENTS: - 1 ^..fa'f11^ L.a.ia®.ikl',.' ^:^"'.- ^$F""'"" .^^\^" /l. THE STATE OF CKKATTISGARH Through The Secretaiy, Home Police Department, D.K.S. Bhavan Maxitralaya Bhavan, RAIPUR, Distt. RAIPUR(C.G.) ^2. Direetor Geiaerai Gf Home Quards, Mana Camp, Raipur Distt.:- Raipur ( C.G.) ,/3. S.M.TmPATHI,, Junior Staff Officer, ^ Home Guards Department-Head Quarter, Ivlana Camp Raipur, Distt.:- Raipur, (C.G.) 4. THE CHAIRMAST, Publte Service Commissios (P.S.C.) Raipur, Distt.- Raipur { C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 /227 OF 'HIE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF DIRECTIONfSt OR ORDERfSI. ^'i^y'y'. ^^\ ...<••"" ^ '! J^^^Ygl ^•^"^l^ ^- •^ ^ MIGM COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BII.ASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petitlon No. 4792 of2005 PETmONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS S, L. Dewangan State of Chhatttsgarh and others Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, PL for State/respondent N0.1 &2. Shri Lokesh Singh under the authority of Shrt Ranbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3 Shri AshSsh Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent N'o.4. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICl.E 226 OFTMg CONSTrrUTSON OF INDZA O R D ER (12.07.2011) The petitioner who is worklng as Office Superintendent has assaiied the order dated 05.09.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.l by which respondent No,3 Shrl S. M. Tripathi has been promoted to the post of Junior Staff Officer (Class-JI Gazetted post). 2. Accordjng to the petitjoner^ he is working as Office Superintendent and as per the Chhattisgarh Mome Gusrds (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules 1991^ hjs next higher post is Junlor Staff Officer (establishment) and he being the soie candidate ought to have been promoted on the said po^t. According to the petitionerf the substantive post of respondent No.3 js Company Commancter which is an executive post and he can be promoted either as a Djstrict Commandant or Junior Staff Officer or Quarter Master as per the Schedute-IV of the Rules 1991. The stand of the petitioner is that earlier th©case of one S. D. Kapoor who was ^—•— -2- aiso working as Office Superintendent (Minjstenal) was considered anct recommended by the authorities for promotion to the post of Junlor Staff Officer (Establishmwt) vlde Annexure P-3 and subsequently Shrj S. D. Kapoor was gjven the same higher post vide Annexure P-6. Me submits that based on the case <?f Shri S. D. Kapoor tlie case of tthe pettttoner was also recommended for promotion vide Annexure P-12 but ignoring his mentorious candidature respondent No.3 has been promoted. 3. Learned counsel for the petltioner submits that the petjtioner was the sole candidate from the Minl^eriaj sicte for promotion to the hjgher post of Junior Staff Officer but yet he has not been promoted on the said post, 4, Denying the contention of the petitioner it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the present petftion is totally misconceived and the petitioner has not placed correct facts before this Court. Learned counsei ^bmits that the document Annexure P-2 Schedule-IV of Rute 1991 was amended in the year 1997 by the then State of Madhya Pradesh where one additional post of Junjor Staff Officer (Establishment) was created and the feeder post of the same was Office Superintendent/Assistant SuperintendenVSenlor Accountant, however, in the state of Chhattisgarh there is no such post of that cadre. 5. Learned State counsel submits that as per Annexure P-5 only one post of Junior Staff Officer is avaitabie and there is no post tike Junior Staff Officer (Establishment). Me submits that for one vacant post of Junior Staff Officer, the candidature of respondent No.3 was considered and as he was found fit, he was promoted to the said post. It has been argued that the petstioner cannot derive any benefit from the ^ •^ -3- promotion of Shri S, D. Kapoor because if any mistake was commjtted by the State Government while promoting Shri S. D. Kapoor, the State Government is not bound to repeat the same. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that once there is no sanctloned post of Junior Staff Officer (Establishment) (Ministerial); questlon of promoting the petitioner as agalnst respondent No.3 does not arlse. Learned State counsel submits that after re-organization of the State, no post of Junior Staff Officer (EstablSshment) (Ministerial) is in existence in the State of Chhattisgarh nor such post was transferred or created and therefore the State Government was fully justified in promoting respondent No*3 on the post of Junior Staff Officer vide Annexure P-l. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. From the document Annexure P-2 i.e. Schedute-IV of Rule 1991 it appears that in the year 1997^ one post of Juntor Staff Officer (Establishment) was created in th@ erstwhite State of Madhya Pradesh and the feeder post of the same was Office Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent/Senior Auditor whereas for the post of District Commandant/Junior StafF OfFicer/ Quarter Master the feeder post was Company/Senior Commander. UndisputedSy, resporalent No.3 was working as Company Commander and therefore considering his case, he was promoted as Junlor Staff Officer vide Annexure P-1. Though the post of Junior Staff Officer (Establishment) was created in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh but as per Annexure P-5 there exists only one post of Junior Staff Officer in the State of Chhattisgarh. Contention of the petitioner that he should have been promoted as Junior •^ ^' -M- Staff Officer (Establishment) in place of respondent No.3 is hjghly misplaced for the reason that once there does not exist any post of Junior Staff Officer (Establishment) in th®State of Chhattisgarh and merely on the basis of the sanctioned post of that cadre in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the petjtloner cannot daim any promotion in the Stafee of Chhattisgarh. Schedule-IV of Rule 1991 is thus of no help to the petitioner. I find no force in the argument of Shn Tiwari that there were as many as 52 posts of District Commandant/Junior Staff Officer/Quarter Master as per Rule 1991 and therefore the case of the respondent No.3 may be considered under any of the said categories. The number of sanctioned posts in tfie State of Madhya Pradesh will be of no help to the petitioner because undisputed!y in the State of Chhattisgarh/ there is no post like Junior Staff Offjcer (E^abJishment), The r@spondent No.l after considerina the case of respondent No.3 has promoted him on the post of Junior Staff ofFicer and as such there is no illegality in the same. I further find no force that as one S. D. Kapoor who was also working in the Ministerial cadre was promoted to the post of Junior Staff Officer, the petjtioner should also have been promoted. White promotjng Shri S. D. Kapoor it was mentioned that hjs case was considered under the exceptional circumstances. Moreover, if any mistake was commttteci by the State ©ovemment/the State Govemment cannot be compeljed to repeat the same by promoting the petitioner. 9. In the result, the petitlon being devoid of any merit ls liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingty. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge