WIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALgR (M.P.) WRIT PETITION NOMOES‘ ? OF 2000 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226(227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ' PETITIONER: Chatar Singh Saluja S/o Shri Sardar w Ranjeet Singh Saluja, aged about 35 years, Junior Engineer ( Communication) Madhya ?radesh’E1ectricity Board,Rafpur,ResidentV of Near Gurudwara,Gurunanak Nagar,shyam Nagar,Raipur (M.P.)' VERSUS 1.Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Through : Secretary, Shakti Bhawan,Rampur. Jabalpur. 2.The Chairman, M.P.Electricity Board, Shakti Bhawan n RamPu-r c ‘3‘E’xecutive Jabalpur Director L H w) :.M.P.E1ectricity Board, Shakti Bhawan,Rampur, Jabalpur. 4oShri Anurag Pant s/o Shri M.L.Pant, Assistant Engineer (Trainee), Office of Chief Engineermystem) M;P.Electricity Board,Jabalpur. 5.shri Manoj Kumar Shanna S/o Shri c.L. Sharma,Assistant Engineer (Trainee); Office of Executive Engineer(M.R.T.Dn.) M.P.Electricity Board.Ujjainv(M.P.)V 0 Q3 -2- 6. Shri M.K .Jaiswal 5/0 Shri M.P.Jaiswal, Assistant Engineer (Trainee) ,C.S.D. (s .T./R.E. ),M.P.Electricity Board, Chhatarpur (M.P. ) Panna. -+ iawae mawniaiw mwe 3m; éineww; ». *iwbawésgaxh a «gamgaany ‘wxmgh mflag R¢§ w}: “ 2: Enlaing gigan‘ia, @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. 4089 of 2000 PETITIONER Chatar Singh Saluja VERSUS RESPONDENTS Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and others Smt. Indira Tripathi counsel for the petition'ef. Shri P.S. Koshy counsel for respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA O R D E R (28.10.2010)' Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that he had joined the service of Electricity Board as Junior Engineer on 20.10.1989 vide Annexure P—2 and thereafter with the permission of the department he had passed the examination of AIME on 18.3.1997 vide Annexure P—5 but his case has not' been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Trainee) though similarly situated persons have been promoted to the said post. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, on the basis of various circulars issued by the respondents dated 26.8.1988, 7.6.1989, 5.11.1990 and 1.3.1993, diploma holder junior engineers who have obtained the degree/AIME with at least 50 per cent marks and have completed four years of service’ as junior engineer are entitled for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Trainee). She submits that the respondent/Board has censidered the case of various similarly situated persons having obtained the degree/AIME while in service with 50 per cent marks and promoted them to the post of Assistant Engineer (Trainee). She submits . though vide Annexure P—8 number of persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted as shown at S.No. 23, 24 and 25 who are before this Court as respondents 4 to 6 but case of the petitioner has @ _2’ not been considered. Counsei for the petitioner submits that even the representations (Annexures P—9 and P-10) made by the petitioner have not been considered by the respondents. 3. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has tiled the present petition seeking promotion to the post of Assrstant Engineer (Trainee) from the date when his Juniors have been promoted Counsei for the petitioner submits that because of his case being not consrdered for promotion to the post of Assrstant Engineer (Trainee) In accordance wrth various crrcuiars Issued by the respondents and the persons Junior to him have been given promotion to the said post petitioner has been put to a great discrimination According to the counsei for the petitioner the pomt invoived in this case is no ionger res integra and the same is covered by the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Ajit Kumar Singh v M P Electricity Board and others (2003 (2) MPLJ 301 and that of this Court in the matter of Vishwas Arvmd Deshmuky v. M.P. Electricity Board and others (W P No 4088 of 2000 decided on 5.12.2005). ‘ 4. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the factual posmon of the case He also submits that case of the petitioner is covered With the deCiSIons of Madhya Pradesh High Court and also of this Court referred to above. 5. Thus considering the rival submissions made by the parties the petition is allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in W P No 4088/2000 Respondents are directed to conSIder the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of ASSIstant Engineer (Trainee) from the date when the persons junior to him were promoted to the said post Let this be done Within a period of four months from today. Pritinker Diwaker Judge j. Sdl- l l l i