;;\-.^"S^P / CF0000165032 INTH^HIGHCOURTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRITPETITIONNO.^^ /2006 SIM,?? ~ -» w9*saSJ: R"'S », °*l~l'E,Lej-l •Ram Kiunar Kori, J^/^/ /^ S/o- Late Shyam Lal Kori, l..-''Y.-'}i / Aged about 33 years, ^7.-^f/\y Presently working as Peon ^- In the ofBee ofPrincipal Account Training School, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER VERSUS •^/^ ,/.;?y ^ /^ , /N)3 2. 1. Director, ^- Treasury, Accoimt and Pension, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ^i- ^ •'q o q} .J "4 b.1 <-13 Joint Director, Treasury, Account & Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspiir, Chhattisgarh. 3. Principal, ^' Acc&unt Training School, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chliattisgarh. RESPONDENTS ^" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI ETC. •'! i- 'i w. ,v^i '•.i'^; ^ p/^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 1922 of 2006 Pctitioner Raai Kumar Kori Versus Respondente Director, Treasmy, Accounts aad Pcnsiou, Raipur & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shii Paiilsaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 7th dsy ofFebniaiy, 2007) 1. The petitioner was employed as Peou vide order dated 4.11.1989 and he is workmg in fhe office of the respondent No.3. Lcamed counsel for the petitioujer submits that the petitioner is entitled to consideration for piomotion to the post ofAssistant Grade-III. 2. It is jointfy admitted by learaed counsel appearing for the parties ttiat the muiuniim required qualification to the post is higher secondaiy pass and five years experience as regular employee on fbe post of Peon (Class-FV). !t is further admitted that fhe petitioner has acquired higher secoudaiy scliool examination certi&cate in fhe year 2001. The petitioner prays for fais promotion, inunediately after he haa obtained the required qualification, after having worked for five yeais. 3. Proiaotioa does not depend on fhe iiequired qualification and experience onty. Promotion depeads upon o.ther factors Uke avaflabilily of fhe posts aad economic condition of ttie <i- -.<-: A,^ employer. Honlsle Supreme Court in IIie case of Shnjat AB & others Vs. Union of Indla Ss others {(1975) 3 S.C.C, 76} has observed as uader;- ''15.........It is true that a nde which confera a right of actual promotion or a right to be considered for promotion is a rule prescribing a condition of service. This proposition can no longer be disputed ia view of several pronouncements of tihis Court on the point and particularly the decision in Mohammad Bhakar v. Y. Krishna Reddy' where ttus Court, speakiag fhrough Mitter, J., said : "Any rule which affects the promotion of a person relates to his condition ofservice". Butwhea we speak of a right to be considered for promotion, we inust not confuse it with mere chance of promotion—thelatter would certamfy not be a condition of service. This Court pointed out in. State of Mysorc v. G. B. Purohit2 fhat though a right to be considered for promotiou is a coadition of serrice, mere chances of promotion are not. A rule which merely affects chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying a condition ofservice.........." 4. A constitution Ben.ch of Hon'ble the Supreiue Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. 8. L. Dutta aad anothers {(1991) 1 S.C.C, 505} has held fhat mere chances of promotion arc not conditions of service aad the fact fhat fhere was reduction in fhe chaaces of promotion. do not lantamount to a chaage in the condition of service. A right to be considered for promotion is a term of serrice, chances ofpromotion are not. 5. A constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Suprcnie Court in the case ofSyed KhaBd Riasrt aad others Vs. Uaion of India aad others { 1993 Supp (3) S.C.C. 575) has held tfaat no employee has a right to promotion but he has only fhe right Thakur to be considered for promotion according to rules. Chances of promotion are not conditions of service and are defeasible. Furfher in the case of H4?» Covxt ot Gujarat aad another Vs. Gujarat Klshan Mazdoor Pancbayat and othars { (2003) 4 S.C.C. 712} it was held by fhe HonUc Supreine Court that an employee has legitimate expectation to be promoted to the h^her post but nobody has a vested right to be promoted. 6. In ttie case of K. Samantaray Vs. Mational Insuraace Co. Ltd. { (2004) 9 S.C.C, 286} fhc Hon'ble Supreme Court has held fhat ''promotion, as understood ia the service law jurisprudence, is advaaceineiit in. raak, grade or bofh and no employee has a right to be promoted, but has a right to be considered for promotfon.* 7. In view of fhe prfnciples laid down by fhe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases (supra), it is welt setfled that no employee has a right to be promoted, but has a right to be considered for promotion. By virtue of fhe fact that the petitioner has completed more fhan five years on fhe post of Peon and has acquired quaUficati.on in the year 2001, he has no right to fhe promotion to fhe next higher post, but be has a right to be coiisidered for promotion to fhe next bigher post. 8. For fhe reasons stated above, the petition is aUowed. The respondents are directed to consider fhe case of the petitioner for promotion to the next bigher post, in accordance wifh law. No onler as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge