HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 46 of l 991 x PE'I‘ITIONFIR : Sarbindra Singh S/o Sardar Nazar Singh Gr. II Clerk, N.C.P.H. Colliery, Haldibadi, Distt. Sarguja (MP) RESPONDENT§ :1. Th6 Chairman-cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Bilaspur. VERSUS \ 2. Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, S.E.C.L Chirmiri Area, Distt. Sarguja (MR) 3. Chain Singhi Clerk Gr. I, C/o Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, SECL, Chirmiri Area, Distt. Sarguja (MP) 4. Timer Baran Ghosh, Clerk Gr. I, C/o Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, SECL, Chirmiri Area, Distt. Sarguja (MP) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB:Ra Hon’ble Shri Satish K. A nihotri J.‘ Present: Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate for the respondent No. l and 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed i 0n 18d] day of July, . 2008) the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus/direction to the and 2 to consider his case for grant ofpromotion to the post of By this petiton, respondent No. l Grade I Clerk from the date, the respondent No. 3 and 4 were promoted. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner andvthe respondent No. 3 and 4 were appointed on the post of General Majdoor. Admittedly, in the seniority list, the name of the petitioner was shown above therespondent No. 3 and 4 as General Majdoor. The case of the petitioner alongwith respondent No. 3 and 4 were considered for promotion in August, 1979, to the post of Grade II Clerk. The respondent No. 3 and 4 were upgraded to Grade I Clerk on 1790 and they were promoted to the post of Grade I Clerk on 5.1 1.1990 (Annexure (,‘ superseding the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has ft la led this petition seeking direction to the respondents for considering his ease for grant ofpromotion with effect from the date the respondent No. 3 andt‘4, who were juniors, were promoted. Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing fOr the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was considered next year and he was granted promotion to the Grade I Clerk with effect from 14.10.1991. The petitioner is junior to the respondent No. 3 and 4 when initially as General Majdoor, he was senior to them. Thus, the respondent authorities be directed to consider his case for grant of promotion with effect from 5.1 1.90. Shri Koshy, learned counsel'appearing for the respondent No. l and 2. per contrar submits that it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not considered for grant of promotion with effect from 5.11.90. The case of the petitioner was considered alongwith others including the respondent No. 3 and 4. On consideration, the work of the petitioner Was not found satisfactory as one of entry in Annual Confidential Report (for short ‘ACR’) for the year 1987—88 was found to be ‘average’ in comparision with the entries made in the ACR of the respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner was thereafter considered and in the next year, he was promoted to the higher post. l have perused the minutes of the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 25.10.1990 wherein the petitioner was not found ‘fit’ for promotion,in View of the fact that ‘average’ entry was recorded in the ACR for the year 1987-88. The petitioner was not better than the respondents 3 and 4. Accordingly, the respondents 3 and 4 were found f1t for promotion and were promoted accordingly. Shri Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was also shown the original records and he is fully satisfied that the case of petitioner was considered and he was not found ‘fit’ for promotion. 1n View of the foregoing, there is novdiscrimination, irregularity or illegality in promoting the respondents 3 and 4 with effect from 5.1 1.1990 ignoring the claim l‘ of the petitioner. Thus, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. as /\inil