REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

ANURAG Appellant

V/S

State of Bihar and Others Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PIRGONDA HONGONDA PATIL V. KALGONDA SHIDGONDA [REFERRED TO]
B. SRINIVASA REDDY V. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
MASHYAK GRIHNIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT V. USMAN HABIB DHUKA [REFERRED TO]
CHARANJIT LAL CHOWDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MADAN GOPAL RUNGLA [REFERRED TO]
L J LEACH AND CO LIMITED VS. JARDINE SKINNER AND CO [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA GAS COMPANY PROPRIETARY LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE H H ANNISH GOWDA VS. C D GOVINDA RAO [REFERRED TO]
A K GUPTA AND SONS LIMITED VS. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
GADDE VENKATESWARA RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
TILOKCHAND AND MOTICHAND VS. H B MUNSHI [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI CHITRA GHOSH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRANATH BOSE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA SHANKAR DEODHAP VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
JASBHAI MOTIBHAI DESAI VS. ROSHAN KUMAR HAJI BASHIR AHMED [REFERRED TO]
GANESH TRADING CO VS. MOJI RAM [REFERRED TO]
R S MAKASHI VS. I M MENON [REFERRED TO]
MARRICHANDRASHEKHARRAO VS. DEAN GETH G S MEDICAL COLLEGE [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR PADMA PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ACTION COMMITTEE ON ISSUE OF CASTE CERTIFICATE TO SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
N BALAKRISHNAN VS. M KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
B K N PILLAI VS. P PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
B R KAPUR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MOR MODERN COOPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY LIMITED VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
SAMPATH KUMAR VS. AYYAKANNU [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJA VS. YELLAPPA [REFERRED TO]
ARUN SINGH ALIAS ARUN KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT AMRATLAL KOTHARI VS. DOSUKHAN SAMADKHAN SINDHI [REFERRED TO]
HARI BANSH LAL VS. SAHODAR PRASAD MAHTO [REFERRED TO]
MULTIPURPOSE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY SALMARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
KHICHRI RAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN VS. NEETU KATHORIA [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. VIJAYA LEASING LTD [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY VS. DHOBEI SAHOO [REFERRED TO]
RENU VS. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TIS HAZARI [REFERRED TO]
BALESHWAR PRASAD RAJAK S/O SRI KRISHNA RAJAK VS. STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director of Accounts from the post of Accounts Officer, rather granted promotion juniors to the petitioner, namely, Sri Jayjit Ray, respondent no.8 and Pradip Manjhi, respondent no.9, to the post of Deputy Director of Accounts, is direct violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In this case, four Interlocutory Applications have been filed vide Interlocutory Application No. 2394 of 2010, thereby the petitioner has sought relief, restraining the Bihar State Electricity Board to grant provisional promotion to the eligible persons and thereby claimed that Resolution no. 17 dated 25.02.2010 be injuncted. Where-after, another Interlocutory application has been filed vide Interlocutory Application No. 9206 of 2014, in which the prayer is in two parts; first part related to addition and substitution of new respondents on account of creation of five companies to be added as party respondents and another part of the relief of challenging the initial appointment of respondent nos. 8 and 9 and the promotion, sought the relief of quo-warranto, having said that appointment is not only illegal statutorily, but also unconstitutionally. Another Interlocutory Application has been filed vide Interlocutory Application No. 5097 of 2016, wherein prayer has been made for production of records relating to appointment of respondent nos.8 and 9 including the certificates in proof of their academic qualification. Last Interlocutory Application has been filed vide Interlocutory Application No. 1984 of 2018, wherein the prayer has been made for early disposal of the case. From the record, it appears that none of the Interlocutory Applications has been allowed, but all the Interlocutory Applications are to be considered at this final disposal of the case.

Click here to view full judgment.

ANURAG Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address