^'\^i'\i: .•''•^r.-.*. '^-.'i a' '•> •'• *1J^ ' 1--" ^i':iAOiHS ^;;^B.S\;fc?-:^'^ c^i z IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 W.P.fSl N0. 00 6 /2QQ7 PETITIONER /V .At// r{£y/! ^•n^' / RESPONDENTS: / 1 ^ .^•'. ,^y' ^ ^^' ^-"o' >>'@^t o'-z ^' / &'*? .3 y Rajkumar Sidar aged about 35 years, S/o. Shri Heera Lal Sidar, R/o. Dakshin Chakradhar Kelo Vihar Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.), Presently working as Peon in District Office Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through; Secretary Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Deputy Collector/Sub- Divisional Officer (R) Raigahr, District Raigarh (C.G.) Additional Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Aadivasi Vikas, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Superintendent, District Office, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) -£ -2- //7. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) y 8. Shri AJay Kumar Sidar, Clerk District Office, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) / 9. Dr. S.K.Raju presently posted as Mission Director, National rural Health Mission, Chhattisgarh Government, Raipur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 -AH HIGH OOURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BiLASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3808 of 2007 PETITtONER : RaJkumarSidar. VERSUS RES_PONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTtON OF SNDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. 4. f \K1'\/ \ "^-y V- Present: Shri Raghavencira Pradhan, Aetvocate for the pstltioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate Genera! for the Stats/ Respondent No.1to. 6. (Passed on 112yday ofJanuar/, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to chaltengs ths action ot the respondents whereby the respondent No. 8, who was a peon has baen promoted to the post of Assistant Grade III ignoring the entltlament ofthe The facts, as projected by the petttioner are that ths pstitioner and the respondent No. 8 were initially appointed on the oost of Peon on 09.10.1996 and 16.05.1997 respectively. As perthe gradation list issued by the Collector, Raigarh, the name of the petitfoner and respondent No. 8 falls at sertal No. 94 and 95 respectively. Both belong to scheduleti tribe category. Four posts ot' Assistant Grade III were lylng vacant out of which three posts were under the unreserved category and one was under the scheduled tribe category. The said posts were to be fiNed up by way of departmentat promotion. For the said (xjrpose, a Departmentat Promotion Committee (for short 'the DPC') consisting of four members viz. Additional Cotlector, Joint Coilector (0.1.G. Finance), Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare and Office Superintencient, Collectorate, Raigarh was constituted. Ths first meeting of the DPC was hsld on 17.04.2007 the name of the petitioner was recemmended for promoUon under the reserved category. However, wtthout cancelling the recommendation of the DPC. again a meeting of DPC was held on 24.04.2007 (Annexure P/1) wherein the petitioner was dedared unsuitable for promotion and the respondent No. 8 was promoted to the post ot'Assistant Grade III underthe reserved category. >7 3. Learned counsel appearlng for the petitloner submits that the second DPC was convened only to accommodate and grant promotion to the respondent No. 8 as he was in the good book of the respondent No. 2. The recommendation of the first DPC meeting hetd on 17.04.2007 could not be given efFect to as the Coliector had made a noSng in the note- sheet that why the duplicate ssrvice book of the petitioner wes furnished and by whose permission, the duplicate service book was prepared (Annexure P/8). Shri Pradhan submits that the duplteate service book of the petitioner was prepared by the order of the Sub Dlvisional Officer, Raigarh and the same was done after due verificatien of pay bitl registers. Thereafter, the second DPC meeting was convened and the respondent No. 8 was seiected and promoted to the post of Assistant Grade III. 4. Learned counset appeartng for the State/respondent Mo. 1 to 8 submits that the entire process of promotion has been carrted out in accortiance with law. There Is no iliegality or irregularity in the order datsd 24.04.2007 (Annexure P/1) and 26.04.2007 (Annexure P/2), which are Impugned herein. 5. Despite sen/ice ef notice, none appears on behalf of respondent No. 7 to 9. Notices were issued to the respondents on 4.7.2007. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on 7.9.2007, 7.12.2007, 25.1.2008, 11-2.2008, 18.2.2008, 23.6.2008, 23.7.2006, 10.02.200925.8.2009, 16.9.2008 and 23.10.2009. The respondent No. 7 to 9 have chosen not to appear in the matter. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused Vhe pleadlngs and documents appended thereto. 7. On perusal of the records, it te found that in the sarlier meeting of the DPC held on 17.4.2007 (Annexure P/4), the petittonar was found fit for promotion anct the respondent No. 8 was not found fit for promotion but the same was canceiled without assigning any reason. Howevar, in the subsequent DPC meeting heldon-24.04.2007 (Annexure P/1), the respondent No. 8 was considered and found fit for promotton and the petitioner was founcl unfit for promotion on the ground that the petkioner has not obtained necessary permission before appearing in the Higher Secondary School Certificate examination i.e. class 12th examination, On perusal of the officiai notings (Annexure P/7), it is found that (n fact the respondent No. 8 has not obtainect permission for appearing in the '-^ s •'•...^ '%&. €/ 9. Higher Secondary Sehool Cartiflcats Examination and other examinations wz. B.A. Part I, Part II and M.A. Pan t, also. Stitl the respondent No. 8 has been consldered for promotiwi, and the petitioner, who was not found frt on the ground that he has not obtained permission, has made an application seeklng permission to appear inthe elass 12th examination, though it is not ctear from the records asto whether permission was grant®!to the petftioner for appearing in class 12th examination or not. It is admitted in the note sheet relating to the proceedings of DPC dated 17.04.2007 which was obtained by the petitioner underthe provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 that the petttioner has made an appticatton seeking permission for appearing in the Higher ^caidary School Examtnation certificate on 10.10.2002. Howevar, it is not elear whether the permission was granted to the petitioner or not. In case of respondent No. 8, it is clearty mentioned that the respondent No. 8 has neither sought permission for appearing in the examination of Higher Secondary School Certificate examination nor for B.A. Part I, Part 11 or for M.A. Part I. tfthiswasthe only ground for rqection of the candidature of the petitloner for promotion, since the respondent No. 8 has not obtained permission for appearing In any examination, the ground stated in the DPC proeeeding deserves to be quashed. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The proceedings of the DPC dated 24.04.2007 (Annexure P/1) and the consequentiat order dated 26.04.2007 (Annexure P/2) so far it relates to the respondent No. 6, are quashed. It is directed that the petitioner alongwith respondent No. 8 shall ba considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade 111 as on 24.04.2007 as the ground shown for rejectlpn of his canctidature for promotton that the petitioner has not obtained prior permission for appearlng fn th8 Wigher Secondary School Certificate Examination, te factually incorrect. The petitioner shalt be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from this order. No order asto costs. Sd/'- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge AlIBt