g... 1 AJJiSffi l^njfe ^ ^t «»t^>hF ; ln?febj j^ Abhl B j | : inlbbj J1A &h Js^lS :: 'ltteiyjy^ *(-j,i»i.l,l^ te>i? IE^ Ute 61 UUtl fi^cBp &h Jbh^U jiy.a ' ,tAi<i' INJ"J. !A^4^ffi ^ ^•'teM 1 F.(fi! l.b.lh 4J?.feyi( J9! •h'&^ jLtiMBy. MyjliS Ite^j. '5'ljJ.liU. ^ Mil 'fflua •4^*4^ js| •Jfflj iSBit^. saafMJt iMfj. '^pB s&isa '^felA XU 61&£ I»i! •It'.flJ AABlte^. 'Mfe^ ^aaija^j. '^teAMA? ai'BltB •ii'tei laUi^it .'Jitets Itteife 'Mhy. teAJfcU 'feyfi : i^ia •&BA16 U^g &3& •Ir'fij AS&U 'fcBt •BA '^'4,3 'Mtejy. teAfeLl 'tefe^ : u.ia * feB.Us i5irKiy"p InIff?gIfcE a d ^j. ^•it*ja| iSsiuisj JfcUt^ ligftltolsj 'tet^lhltb BfcSLE 'jz-s4 A&i3&§ *iutej yn%&t^ 'ahAsU •IIE'^ 4^ «t»* tolt^ltR js& is )i£ 'ySteU 'iis'a& \OQ?/^ ^.te^ '&'iS. ^/i^.9£W-^ ^SblA 'Js^fi -to& toiAtyje fti-jBite^ &au. xyiteUt itea 'SWS/i^ -K,'.^',^.,- f"'V^S fv.vtgi; .,f:.U. j 'i!-i!S ^!1( wwt ^ ^a^ 1 g ^&^ ^T-y' HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BIL&SPUR SINGLE BBNCH : HON'BLE SHRI BSASI?«DRAMGH^ SHRIVASTAVA.J. KESPOMDENTS Writ PefciUoniSj No.36ol^aOOS S.R.Rajput Versus State of Chhatttegarh aad 5 others Apweataace: Shri Rakesh Antliony, counsel for fhc petitioner. Shri Chaudresh Shrivastava, Paael Lawyer for fhe State. ORAt ORBBR (Passed on 22 March 2010) By this petitiou, petitioner seeks to assafl legalily aad validlty of conununication dated 10t" Aprii 2000 (Annexure A-6) by which fais claun fbr proinotion. aud senlouly has been rejected. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was laltiaUy appoiuted as Assistant Grade-3 ou •22f 03/1973 and was later ou coiuu-med w.e.f. 02/08/i983. According to the petitioner, respondeuts No.4, 5 and 6 weic appolated and coiifu'ined subsequent to fhe petitiou.cr. Even then, vide order dated 1G/11/1983 (Annexui-e A-3), fhey were proiiiotcd as l°t Grade Clerk. Later on, respondent No.u was fuither pfouioted as Accoiuitant vide order datcd 10/07/1994 (AnnexuK; A-4). Vide order dated 18/07/2000, respondent No.6 was agaia proinoted to the postofSuperlutendent. Petitioner subuutted several representations. On repiesentation dated 21/ 10/ 1999 luade by fbe petitioner to the Cojiumissioner, Bllaspur Divislon, vide uupugned coi£Lmunicationdated 10/04/2000, petitioner's iieprescntation was i-ejecteu.. Case of the peuuoner is tliat vjde order dated 16/ 1l/1983, respondents - A - s No.4, 5, and 6, who were jiuuor to birn, were pi'ojnoted ignoring the just claiiu of the petitioner for projuiouon as liit Grade Clerk. 'They were jiuuor to fuc Detiuoner. It is clear froj.u fhe saradation list published vlde mexuo dated 30/11/1982 (Annexure A-l), showiug seniority posltk>ii as ou 1/4/1982. F'urfuer submission is ftiat me petitioner had earned appreciation for his uieritorlous perforiaaace of worldng as is evident from certificate dated 2/ 10/1980 (Aiiiiexure A-2). E'ven fhen, the reasou disclosed for his supercessioii is fhat tlie petitioner was gradcd average category in his ACRs. Petitiouer was entitled to a better gradiug than what was recoided in hfe ACRs. 3. On the ofher hand, it is subiultted on behalf oftue respojideat fuat for fhe purpose of considerlug suitability, for Grade-2 clerk, criterja of senj.ority" Ctun inerit was applied. Case of the petitioner was also considered for prouiotion iu fhe year 1983. Ou assessment of petitiouer's suitabllily based on hls ACRs of the last 5 yeai-s froia the .year 1978 to 1982, petitioner was not found fit for proiaotion. Accoming to the criteria laid down, iu order to earn mlauuiua merit for Gi'ade-2 Clerk, he shouM have earned atleast 3 tf'/'a uom. 1978 tul 1980 but aU fhe ACRs of the petitioner were categorized as •1 and noue of theui was 4'/y luuch less fuIGIUng fiie requiicinent of minimnm 3 w/'\. Later 011, the petitioner was promoted as clerk grade in the yeai' 1985. While consideriug the case of fhe petitioiter for procaotion to tue ptost of accountant in the year 1984, though fhe petitioner was fouad fit, he was placed at Sr. No. 17 iu. the list. There were 5 vacancles, fheiefoiie, those piaced at Sr. No.5,7,8,12 and 13 were proiuoted aud the petitioner could not be prouioted as fhere were no vacaucies. Petltioner could uot claiia lus or^inal seniority as 2nd Urade Clerk over and above respondent No.6 because respoudeut No.6 was pi-oitioted as Ist Gi-ade Clerk In the year 1983 whereas -3- '"I petitioner was prouioted ia fhe year 1985 auu therefore as iu tue cadre of 'iet Gi^de Clerk, respoudent No.6 was placed over aad above the petitioner whlch 1s reflected froxn assessjneut of the suitabilily of fhe Deparunexit of PiuDiotion Coiiuuittee (Aiuiexune R-3). Later on, as respoudent No.6, eai'iied pioinotion to fhe post of Accoiiataut on 11/07/1994 she was coasMered for promotion 011 fhe post of Superintendent and proiuoted vlde order dated 18/07/2000. > 4. I have considered fhe subinissious niade bv learued counsel for the respective parties and perused flie recoixl. lu so far as issue wifh regard to petitioner's supercession iu the year 1983 1s conc-crned, it 1s apparent that petitioner uid not approach the Court. Cause of action arose for hirn when oxder of promotion dated 16/11/83 (Anaexure A-3) was passed by wliich Iiis junlors were promoted. Petitioiier was subsequently promoted on fhe post of 1st Gi-ade Clerk ia fhe year 1985 which te reflected froiu his servic-e detafls iiidicated in Annexui'e R-3. The petitiouer, however, did uot take recourse to reniedy avauable to him under the law aud acquiesced in fhe actiou of the respondents. Later ou, respondent No.u was proxuoted as Accouuteut iu fue yeai- 1994 vidc order dated 11/07/1994, this was also jnot chaUeuged by the petitioner aad after almost 5 yeai-s, a icpresentation was preferred on 21/10/1999 which was rejected on 10/04/2000. It is only thereafter, ttiis petition was filed. In so far as challenge to superc-essiou iu the year 1983 is conceriied, it attaiued fiualily. T'he piioiaotioji of respondent No.6 as Accountant in the year 1994 was based on his better senlority posltion ia the cadre of 115t Giade Clerk. A perusal of assessiueiit uiade by fhe Depaitmciit of Pi-oinotion Coiuiuittee placed on record as Auuexure R-3 shows that respondent No.G was placed at Serial No. 12 wheieas petitioner was placed at Serial No. 17. The petitiouer is thus not entitled to claim senlority over aud ••• ^ above respoudent No.6 iu the cadre of 1st Grade Clerk ou the basls fuat iu the cadre of 2nd Urade Cterk, petitioner was senior to respondent Mo.6 because respondent No.6, though jimior to the petitioner in the cadre of 2Iltt Grade Clerk, respondent No.6 was promoted earlier thau fhe petitiouer vide oxd.er dated 16/11/83 (Annexure A-3) whereas the petitioner was pnomoted as 1st Grade Clerk onlv iu the vear 1985 as reflected ftoni delails of fhe petitioner coutaiued in Aniiexure R-3. It has been stated by the respoadents that thei-e were only 5 vacaacies available and fherefoie first five amongst those Ist Grade CIerk, who were fouud fit for projnotions, were granted in order of fueir seuiority. 1st Grade Clerk at Serial No.5,7,8, 12 and 13 were granted pi-omotion agaiust 5 avaiiable vacancies and the petitioaer coidd uot be piomoted fhough he was fouud fit as he was p]aced at Sr. No. 17. lu so far as promotion to f&e post of Superiutendent is coucerued, respondent No.6 was promoted ou the baste of her seniorily aud tlie petitioner could uot seek aay coittparisou. 5. In fhe result, I do not fiud any merit in the petition and me same is flierefore dlsiiussed. ~ ~ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge