<^L ^OO^- / ^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT " BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. S56 2- /2003 / PETITIONER •^s;^ '^ RESPONDENTS \© :1. Chandra Sen Joshi, aged 50 Years, S/o.Kartik Rara Joshi, Assistant Grade III Employee, Govt. Cross Cattle Breeding Farm, Chandkhuri, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Departinent ofAnim.al inedicine & Aniraal Veterinary D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Joint Director Animal Medicine services, District office, Raipur (C.G.) The M:anager Govt. Cross Cattle Breeding Farm, Chandkhuri, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) M.R.Meshrara, Assistant Grade II Einployee, Govt. Cross Cattle Breeding Farm., Chandkhuri, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) u //2 // WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OFCHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRJT PETITION N0.3562 OF 2003 .Chandra Sen Joshi Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articte 226/227 of the Constltution of India) Single Bench :.Honfb!e Shri Satish K, Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsei for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawver for the State. ORDER (ORAU ' : . - (Passed on this 18 day of March, 2010) 1. . By this petition, the petltioner seeks quashing of the gradatjon list dated 1-4-2003 (Annexure - P/2) and further,seeRs a • direction to the respoodent authoritjes to promote the petitioner on the post of Assistant Grade - II from the date his junior was promoted to the said post. 2. 'Learned counsei appsarlng for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, was initjaliy appointed on the post of Assistant Grade - IIS on 15-11-1976. As per the gradation iisi dated 1-4-1997 (Annexure -• P/1) the name of the petitioner was at S.No.9 whereas the name of the respondent No.4 found p!ace.at S.No.39. On 1-4-2003 (Annexure - P/2) another gradation list was issued, In which the name of the petitjoner foynd place at S.No.28 and the name ,of the respondent No.4 is at S.No,17 Jn spite of the fact. that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1976 whereas the respondent No.4 was appointed in the year 1982. Being aggrieved by the said action-of the respondent ^ authoritles, the petjtioner submitte-d a representation daied 8-8- 2003 (Annexure - P/3),'which was rejected and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 28-8-2003 (Annexure - P/4). Shri Prajapati further submits that the represesitation of the petitloner has been rejected wlthout assignlng any reason. Thus, this petition^ Contradicting the contentjons of the petitioner, iearned oounsel appearing for the State supports the impugned actlon of the respondent authorities. The petitioner was Inltiaily appolnted cn the post of Lab Attendant on 1-5-1976 and thereafter, by order dated 30-4-1979 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade - JSI, j.e. within a period of 2Vz years. AccordinQ to the circuiar dated 13-3-1984 (Annexure - R/1-1) for promotion to the post of Asslstant Grade - lli, the requlsite- qualification was that the employee shoutd have worked in ciass IV post for the period of five years and he shouid pass the examination of Higher Secondaq^ School Certiflcate whereas the petitioner has not compieted five years of service cn ciass IV post. Thus, the petitjoner is not entitled to any reilef. I have examined the rivai contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pieadings and the documents appended thereto. tn the return 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 iist dated 1-4-2003, which Is contrary to the gradation list dated 1-4-1997. Both the parties have not n':) mentioned the fact that on which date the respondent authorities have consldered the case of the respondent No,4 for grant of promotion. The respondents have simply stated that the petltloner has not completed the requislte period of five years servlce wlthout submittlng any documents. Even the representatiorf submitted by the petltioner raislng his grievances about the gradatlon Sist dated 1-4-2003 has a-Sso not been considered in its ietter and splrit and without assigning cogent reason the same has been rejected. 5. Looklng from any. angle, the petitioner, it appears, completed five years of service on the posts of Lab Attendant and Asslstant Grade - liS in the vear 2003. Thus, the contention of Shri Bhaduri, ieaned counsei appearing for the State, that th.e petltioner dld not have 5 years work experience on the day his junior i.e, respondent No,.4 was considered-.for promotion, is misconceived. There Is no dispute that the respondent No.4 was appolnted the year 1982 and the petitioner was appointed intheyear1976. 6. • In vlew of foregoing, the respondent authorities are dlrected to consider the grievance of the petitloner afresh, amend the gradatlon ilst and further conslder the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion, In accordance with iaw and on Its own merits, as on the date his iunior was oonsidered and promoted. 7< Accordingiy, the writ petltion is disposed of. Ho order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge