%!i WRITPETITION (S) N& 2531 y. RESPONDENTtS) .® 1. Ravishankar Ghaturvedi, Aged; about - 35 Years, S/Q - Shri Ramnaresh Chaturvedi, Occupation - Electrician Category-5 nbsted at Bartunga Hill Mine, Chirffliri Area, R/o- New Mines, Quarter, P.Q, Line, Post-Godaripara, t.-Korea(C.G.) 2. Nilesh Kumar Mishra, Aged about 42 Years, S/o.- Shri Keshaw Prasad Mishra, Occupation- Electrician Category-5 posted at Doman Hill Colliery, NCC group, Chirmiri Area, R/o- Qr. No. e-Type, Officers Colony, Doman Distt. Distt. Korea (C.G.) 1. 2. 3. 4. VERSUS • . . .. South Eastem Coal.Fields Ltd. Through Its Chairman-cum-Managing Director Seepat Road,Byaspur(G.G.) General Manager, Chinniri Area, South Eastem CoalFieldsLtd. Distt. -Korea(C.G.)' 6. 7. Chief Personal Manager,, Chinniri Ai'ea, South Eastem Coal Fields Ltd. Distt. - K6rea(C.G.) • . ' , SuresU Prasad Tiwari, S/o- Shri Bisember Prasad Tiwari, Aged about - Not known, PQSted as Electrician Cat.-Vat at Kurasia OC, Distt.-Korea (C.(j.) Padum Cliaran Nahak, S/o. - Stiri Shyam Nahak, Aged about - Not KDOWB, Posted.. as Electrician Cat.-Vat at Chirmiri OC, vDistt. - KoreafC.G.^ • : Dilip Kumar Mishra, S^ Shri Mohaa Lal Mishra, Aged about —,Notknown, Posted as EIectriciaffl:€at.-Vat,atAnjan Hitl UG, ©istt., ;ICoreal(C.G.). . : :,,:.- :: .:'. , • „. ;,;',':,.'. Ram Biswas Verma, S/o- Shri .B.L.Verma, Aged aboyt - Not Known, Posted as.EIectrician Cat.-Vat a.tN.C.P.H,Distt.-Korea(C.G.) WRIT PETITION .UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF -INDIA. -£Ji:. S.B-,.: 'H0N'BLE'3tJSTIC;E. SHRI: SATISH'K. AGNIHOTRI) Present Shri ViaayPaadev, Advocateibrthe petitioners. ^:l-;s & 3, (P.'assed oa 25th day pfApri!, 2007) The petitioners; by this petition, seek a writ of certiorari quashing the impugnedpromotionorderdated 17.11.2005 (AnnexureP/3)andalso theorderdated 05.02.2007 (Annexure P/6) whereby the respondents 4 to 7 have been promoted tothe post of Assistant Foreman (Electrical) in T&S grade-'C'. . . . The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner no. I and 2 are worfcing as Electrician Category 5, posted at Barhinga Hill Mine, and Electrician Category-5 posted at Doman Hill Collieiy, Chinniri Area, respectively. A Departmental PromotiQn Committee was constituted and on recommendation, respondentno.4 to 7 were ptomoted on the post of Assistant Foreman (Electrical) in T&S grade-'C' vide order dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure P/3). The promotion was purely on temporary basis. The said order was thereafter cancelled vide order dated 09.01.2006 (Annexure P/5). Again, vide order dated 05.02.2007, the order passed on 17.11.2005 in favour of the respondents4 to 7 wasrestored. Being aggrieved, the petitioner questions the validity of the order dated 17.11.2005 and 05.02.2Q06 whereunder tiie private respondents have been promoted to the higher post and furfher seeks direction td the respondents 1 to 3 to consider their cases for the next promotional posti.e.theAssistantForeman,withconsequefltialbenefits., Leamed counsel appearisg for the petitioner, Mr. Pandey, submits that ia view of the cadre scheme, the petitioners, a&er having obtained experience ofElectrical Fitter for three years, has to be considered for promotion. By not considering the name of the petitioners, the omission on the part of the authorities is irrational, unreasonable strid bad in law. coiinsel appearing .for.the petitioners further submit Ihat the of the autliorrties is also arbitrary as the petitioners have 6. 7. 9. 10. promoted the private respondents 4 to 7 without considering the case ofthepetitioners, whoareequallycompetentfQrpromotion. ; This is not a case ofthe petitioners that they are seniors to the selected candidates and they haye been ignored completely from consideration, as such, there is discrimination or arbitrariness. The challeiige ofthe petitioner is pnly on the ground that smce the petitioners have obtained tiiree years Electrical Fitter experience,the petitioners oueht to have been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Obteining experience is not sufScierit for cohsidering a .person for promotion. Promotion depends on seyeral factors i.e. availability of vacancy, financial constrainte of the employer and availability of sufficient number ofemployees who are senior ifl the cadre. Further, in the case of High coiurt of Gujarat and another Vs. Gujarat Kisan Mazdoor Panchayat and Others {(2003) 4 SCC 712} it was held by the Hon'bleSupreme Court that an employee has legitimate expectation to be promoted to the higher post but nobody has a vested rightto be promoted. In view ofthal, there is no merit in the case as materials of fact baye neither been pleaded nor produced before this Court t6 establish the unreasonableness, or arbitrarmess has been perpetrated. As a result this petrtion i.s summarily dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit