1>^ "-*!>. f^s^. '%, Y '^y te.s^^ r^ov HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeai No.250 of^lQ APPELLANTS: (Respondents No.1 to 3) RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Animal Medicine & Animal Veterinary, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Joint Director, Animal Medicine Services, District -Office, Raipur (CG) The Manager, Govt. Cross Cattle Breeding Farm, Chandkhuri, District Raipur (CG) Versus Chandra Sen Joshi, aged 50 years, S/'o Kartik Ram Joshi, Assistant Grade III Employee, Gbvt. Cross Cattie Breeding Farm, Chandkhuri, District Raipur (CG) M.R. Meshram, Assistant Grade II Empioyee, Go'vt. Cross Cattie Breeding Farm, Chandkhuri, District Raipur (CG) Present:- Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State/appeliants. Shri D.N. PrajaDati- counsel for respondent No.1. DJvision Bench: Hon.^hn Dhirendra Mishra & Hon. Shri R.L. Jhanwar, JJ. (18-1-2011) 1 With the consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard. 2. !.A. No.1, application for condonation of delay, is allowed and delay of 84 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. 3. -Th!§ writ appea! is dirscted against the order dated 18 March 2Q1Q (Annexure-A/1) whereby learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition of respondent No.1 has directed the appellants to consider the grievance of respondent No.1 afresh, amend the gradation list and further consider the caseof respondent No.1 for grant of promotion, in ^^—-^ ,15^^fc;'l '<ii> J]J? ^ ^ " 'k.f^h. ' "-te^.'^'s /-jy accordance with law and on its own merits, as on the date his junior was considered and promoted. 4 Respondent No.1, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, was appointed on the post of Lab Assistant on 1-5-1976. Thereafter he was promoted on the post of Assistant Grade III on 30-4-79. As per the gradation list dated 1-4-1997 his name appeared at. S. No.9 whereas the name of respondent No.2 found place at S. No-39. Another gradation list was issued on 1-4-2003 where the name of respondent No.1 found p!ace at S. No.28 and the name of respondent No.2 was at S. No.17 whereas respondent No.2 was appointed in the year 1982. 5. 1-earned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with an observation that "the respondents have no where stated that asto how the name of the respondent No.4 has been kept above the name of the petitloner in the gradation list dated 1-4-2003, which is contrary to the gradation list dated 1-4-1997. There is nothing on record t.o show as to on whteh date the case of respondent No.4 for grant of promotion was considered. The representation of the petltjoner against the gradatlon list dated 1-4-2003 has not been considered in ite letter and spirit and without assigning cogent reason the same has been rejected." Respondent No.1 completed five years of service on the post of Lab Attendant and Assistant Grade III tn the year 2003 and the contention of the appellants that respondent No.1 did not have 5 years working experience on the day his junior i.e. respondent No.2 'was considered for promotion is misconceived. There is no dispute that respondent No.2 was appointed in the year 1982 and respondent No.1 was appoirted in the year 1976. 6. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/appeiSants argusd that as per circular of Annexure-A/2 dated 13 March, 1984 issued by the General Administration Department of the State Government, class-tV emptoyee qualifies for promotlon to the post of Class-111 after completion of five years service as Class IV employee as well as he should possess minimum educational qualification of having passed hjgher secondary examination. Since respondent No.1 was not qualified on both above-mentioned counts, he was wrongly promoted as Class I!) after comptetion of 2 14 years of his service as class IV employee ^.":->i vids ordsr datsd 3Q Aprl!, 1979 snd h.e '.iyas wrongly giyen seniority vide seniority list dated 1-4-1997, Seniority was revjsed on 1-4-2003 (Annexure-P/2). Respondent No.1 did not pass Hindi Typing Examination till attaining the age of 45 years, therefore, as per circular of Annexure-A/3 dated 29-1-1983, respondent No.1 was not qualifled to get seniority as class III employee from 25-6-1998. 7 On the other hand, Shri D.N. Prajapati, leaned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No1 submitted that so far as contention that respondent No,1 did not pass Hindl Typing Examination from the date titl he attained the age of 45 years is concerned, from perusal of ciroular of Annexure-A/2, it is clear that passing of Hindi Typing Examination was not compulso^ as per instruction/cjrcutar dated 3-6-1977. As regards other ground that respondent No.1 did not have 5 years experience as class IV employee, respondent No.1 was appointed 7 years before respondent No.2 and, therefore, the appellants ought to have considered respondent No.l's case for promotion when the case for promotion of respondent No.2 was considered. Further refemng to circuiar dated 30 June, 1986 (Annexu,re-R-1/3) issued by the Director, Veterinary Services, it was argued that respondent No.1 had passed Higher Secondary Examination and thus, he fuffilled the educational qualiflcation. 8 Heard tearned counsel for the parties. .. 9. Indisputably, vide circular of Annexure-A/2, compulsion of passing of Hindi Typing Examination has been exempted as per circuiar dated 3rd June, 1977 (Annexure-R-1/1). Respondent No2 was inducted in service in the year 1982 whereas respondent No.1 joined the servtee in the year 1976, therefore, contention of the State that he did not complete 5 years when respondent No.2 was considered for promotion appears to be illoglcal and misconceived. In view of the circular of Annexure-R-1/3, the appeltants could not have denied seniority to respondent No.1 on the ground of qualificat'on, as respondent No.1 has also passed Higher Secondary Examination. Even otherwise, the aforesaid objections were never raised before the learned Single Judge. IB c%r 10 On the basis of aforesaid discussiQn; we do not flnd any substance in this writ appeat, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Barv« Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sdf- R.L. Jhanwar jurige