& 6>, ::'^'^^^'^'?^^^^ s IN THE HI&H COJRT GF JUBICATURE AT JABALHJR (NPy WRIT PETITIGN N0.[^^^ 72000 PETITIONER ©•S^Agravyalysonof Shri G^L^ Agrawal, agedabout 36 y©ars>posted as UD.Co at Janpad Panchayat Ablianpur^District Raipur (NP)^ Versus RESPONDENTS S C: I- ^ 2- Chief Esecutive OffiGer^ . Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur^ District Raipur, Depu-fcy Director, Pancliayat Avaa Samaj Sewa^ Raipur^District Raipur^ ^> 3- President, Janpad Panchayat^Abhanpur^ Dist»ric<fc Raipu^<, il. ^> 4- M.L.Sahy, U»B»C»^Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur^ District Raipyr* miT PETITICN UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF TH5 CCNSTITUTICN C3? INDIA AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG.^RH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 1368 of2000 PETITIONER G.S. Agrawal RESPONDENTS Versus ChiefExecutive Officer & Others li Post for pronouncement ofjudgtYient & order on .., 7.;.day ofMarch, 2011. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 11 ^- -;\ .^1 :jl HIGH COL7RT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0. 1368 of2000 G.S. Agrawa! Versus . ChiefExecutive Officer & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia) Single Bench :. Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Smt. Ajiju Ahma., Advocates fbr the petitioner. . Shri P.P,Sahu, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 & 4. Sliri Ajit Singh, Paiiel La^yer forthe State. (Delivered on . Z. day ofMarch, 2011) 1, Challenge in this petitiosi is to the promotioii order dated 4.1.2000 (Aimexure P-1), whereby, the resposident No.4 has been promoted to • the post of Upper Division CIerk . on the reconmiendation. of Departmental Promotion Conmiittee (for short <ithe DPC)f) held. 011 25.11.1999. 2. The brief facts, i.n nutsheli,, as projected by the petitiosier are that the petitioner was appomted as Lower Divlsiosi Clerk, Gi'ade-II, on 1,5J.987 and the respondent No.4 was appointed o.n 4.5.1987 in Janpad Pa.nchayat- Abhanpur, District R.aipu.r. On being sesiior to the re.spoBde.nt No.4, the petitioner was shovvn iii the seniority list above the responde?it No.4. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition m the High Co-urt of Judicato-ire at Jabalpur, being W.P. No.324/1999 challenging the order dated 2.11.1998, whereby one T.N. Avasariya was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk. The order dated 30.6.1999 (Ajmexiire P-3) passed inthe sa.id writ petition, quashed the order dated 2.11.1998 and directed the respondent Janpad Panchayat to coiisider the case of the petitioiier, T.N. Avasariya asid other eligible candidates, m accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the DPC l^ ^i was held cn 2.5.11-.1999, wherein the case ofthe petitioner was also considered. The DPC obsenred as under : "?T.1?. 'TF^I TT^ -33^ITW7[JT f5;i:T 10 J^ 1999 ^ ?^?i' ^^. l^i^ia ^r (q^ff -q^ fii^i^ ?f^) f^FT 1999 ^ 3^ f^TT 22 ^ ^?" ^nrfefM' q^4^l^i1' 7T?T TTq' ^T ?^ft f^T 15—10—99 r^t y^lRia cjff TT^ ^zff c^ <^tTR vi^ ^f f^rf^ ^ ucii-jf?i fg f^F.R' ^Nt tNWr ^ ^ ^ ?OT c^ ^3T:3?TR ^l^c^ ^OT^=r M^l^l^ t:- ^ ^r=?na1SF 'o^f '^ ^terf0! rl^4i^i c^4^ifl' r?nf^-Tf^[ ^ ^TP'7T^T ^T W^. f^T '?^T?TT 92.93 93.94 ^nM-:1i4 ^f^rteT 94.95 9o.96 9S.97 97.93 08.99 ^r r^ y^f 10-&-57 4-5-87 W€ ^FT? TTff^f ^T.'iHmT. ^T.^FfmT. CJTF4 ^IT? ^rp=t- -^^T? •3?x^T ^AT^. '-4-61 5-5-87 ^. r^. ^ETOT ^J.'^T^ '^..'^W, ^TS?I •q^rf •S^F ^rf ^as^y ^T'T ^T.TTH, -25-cr-62 1-&-8? IR. "c^T aI^T 3TSJI ^?F? S^?JT 3TrS?T ^ c^-4 STSS&T •ffTrf ST55T ^rf 3??F?[ ^rq' 3^51 -^ iciiqy< cpfq 5TS?T ^ ^T7? ^'4 "S^FI ^S^. c{Tp7 s^, YJ\T!^, qTf4 ^^!?? ^)^?i ^pf 3?7ST q5T^ I^R Si^n ^F? Sf5?T (tf.) ^pry c^ giTi^T sPTfc^/934/15-7-94 ^RT vFW? M^-{l^a ^T ^ ^'^Tg? ^qf^cp ^TFTRNUT ^ 1^TTl< 1-10-94 ^ ^T ^i^fd^ ^ TT5^T j ^WT^f ^- ^- 1^fOpT -^ft f f^ vTW^ SMK!d 'cp T^CKT ^^T ^TTft f^fq^ IR" TR cl-J^^Tr-^f^-^ |^^ r ^ 3TT^R fIR ^t 1?T)'.^T.?n^. PF^T ^Nbr f^ft7^ '^l' ^^? ^ft "Rrf&1 Ti? ^r< ^Kir-iia ^rr T5ni l ^€\/-25/11/99 r^fT7H:T ^7T ~?n:TT'3T ^^[T^T ^i^^/^s'^ 7Tc^? Tfl/- -3?^s-i mTERT-^R^ ^/- %Oq5TO^O •^•i-r.^ M^i^n ST^-F^ •uws< •?rt,/- ^^sr J'&T^ ^SJT T^ 25/11/93 ' Finally, the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order, promoting to the responde.nt No.4. 3, Ms. Amu Aliuja, appeariiig for the petitioiier submits that imder the provisions of Rule 12 of Jasipad Parichayat (Qualification, P.ecmitmeiit an.d Sei-vice Cosidition) Rules, 1976, criteria for promotj.cn is seniority-cum-merit. Admittedly, the petitioner was senior to the respondent No.4 and m the DPC, it has also been found that he vvas havmg better qualit1.catio.il and his performance was as ?ood as'that ofthe respondent No.4. Despite that the respoiident No.4 was promoted and the petitioner was ignored. The decisiori ofthe. DPC is artitrary, discrimmatoiy and uriieasonable. Thus, the same '-^ @ deserves to be quashed and the respomient No3 be directed to promote the petitioner w.e.f the date respondent No.4 was promoted. On the other hand, none appears 011 bshalf ofthe respondem No.3. Howeven on the basis ofretum, Shri Smdi, leamed counsel appearing for tbe State/respondent No.2 would submit that the promotion oftiie respondeDt No.4 was made on the basis of recommendation made bv the DPC held on 25.11 J999. The respondent No.4 was senior and'the petrtioner was at serial No.3, thus, since iii merit, they were at par, the respondent No.4 being senior was. recomniended fbr proinotion. The petitioner has not challenged the seniority as seniority was fixed under provisions of Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarii Paiichayat Service (Recmitment Asid General Conditions Of Sendces) Rule-s, 19C)9 (heremafter refeiTed to as liRides, 1999"). The petitioner was treated as appointed io the cadre of Janpa.d Panchayat- Abhanpur w.ei. 1.10,1994 oii the date ^/iien he v^as transfeiTed from Janpad Panchayat- CHiurwa to Janpad Paridiayat- Abhanpiir, in accordance with the provisions ofRules 27 ofRuies, 1999. Thus, on the basis of joimng oftte petitioner by order dated 15.7.1994 (Ajmexure P-Sl the petitioner cannot claim the seniority over an.d above tiie respondent No.4, who had jomed Janpad Paiichayat" Abhanpur, prior to the petitioner. The contention ofthe petitionsr th.at he was senior to the respondent No.4 is not correct. There is no dispute ttiat the petrtioiier was initially appointed m Janpad Pa.nchayat» Chhurwa and thereaft.er, on his request, he was traiisfen'ed andjoined at Jasipad Pancha.yat" Abhanpur on 1.10.1994. Thus, he cou3d not have been placed in the semority list above the respondent No.4, v/iio was appointed directly in Janpad Panchayat- Abhmipur, 011 4.5.1987. It is evident fomi Aimexiire P-'l 7. that llie DPC tn its proceedmg, has clearly observed to the afoove extent. Accordmgly, fhe petitioner was bom in fhe cadre of Jaiipad Pachayat- Abhanpur w.e.f 1.10.1994. Rule 27 of the Rules, 1999 makes it clear that any empioyee onjoming Panchayat service ofother Panchayat shall be placed at the junior most raiik for the pmposes of semonty. 27. Appomtment of Panchayat empky to cmd his Panchayat - Norwithstanding anything contained m these mles, the appointing authority on application ma.de by any employee ofPanchayat Sennce ofother Pcmchayat may appoint siich emphyee to a same or equivalent post in the Panchayat sennce on such terms and conclitions as may be mutiially agreed lipon between the t'wo Panchayats, and subject to the fbllowng conclitions, namely :- (i) Such appointment shall not be macle to post to befilled by projnotion; (ii) Theperson soappoimed shciUreceivetheninior most rank for the purpose of seniority, in the cadre ofthe post to which he is appointecL as it standson the date ofsuch appoinhnentj\ Further, even the list prepared by the DPC under the provisions of R.u!e 22 ofRules, 1999 also indicates that the respondent No,4 was placed at seriai No.l^ T.N. Avasariya at serial No.2 and the petitioner at serial No.3, which was in accordance with the provisions oflaw, as afore.stated. Thus, claim of the petitioner that a.11 other conditions foimd equivalent the petitioner, being senior, should be. promoted to the higher post is rejected. The Suprem.e Court, subsequesitly, in the matter of Union oflndia and Others u Deo Narain cmd Others obsen/ed as under : "32. Wrhat ^Jas held in Ponnappan by this cozirt ^as that ifan ernployee is trcmsferrecl form one deparhnent to c'mother department on compassionate grounci he ^ould be placed at the bottom ofthe semority in the transferee department Hence, at the time of his trcmsfer in the tf'ansferee department, all employees in the same cadre w!w were very much sennng at that time would be shown above such tramferee employee and in such combinecl seniority list the ^ansferrecl employee would be sho-wn as jimior most The onty I2008(10)SCC84 8. thing which this court said and wth respect, rightly, is thcn such an emphyee who had alreacty worked m a particidar cadre and gainecl experience, will not lose pcist service arid experience for the p-urpose of considering eUgibility when his case comes up for consideration fbrfUrther promotion. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and applying the provisions of law, and ratio laid down by.the Supreme. Court m Deo Narain & Others ,Hie petition is merit4ess. M a resul't the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok