MUSHTAQ AHMAD HAMDANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugns order no. 434/05 dated 17th March 2005 purporting to have been passed by respondent no.3 directing respondent no.5 to remain "under study" for the post of Section Officer likely to become vacant on 31st of Oct. 2005 after superannuation of incumbent namely Chooni Lal Sharma. Ground pleaded is that the order has been passed to pave way for undue promotion of respondent no.5 against prospective vacancy of Section Officer even though he is far junior to him and besides having earned some adverse remarks at different times has inferior academic qualification also. Materials appended with the writ petition include the impugned order and other orders/communication regarding petitioners service profile.

(2.) IN their objections official respondents while admitting petitioners seniority over respondent no.5 have pleaded that charge of Section Officer was given to said respondents for remaining "under study" for promotion thereto because he has qualified the "Secretariat Training Course" in 1996, while petitioner has not qualified the same. Rest of the contents of reply pertain to other pleas taken by petitioner regarding 5th respondents service profile and do not appear to be very relevant in view of the main plank of petitioners case based on his seniority and better eligibility for promotion to the post of Section Officer. During course of submissions learned counsel have mainly reiterated the contents of pleadings with reference to their respective annexures. Since respondent no.5 has not appeared despite service he is proceeded against in ex -parte.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel, gone through the records and considered the matter. In view of conflicting pleas advanced by rival sides the moot -question that emerges for determination is, as to whether or not in circumstances of the case, the impugned order of placing 5th respondent virtually on the launching pad for promotion to post of Section Officer that was yet to become available, was proper in view of petitioners admitted seniority; and what, if any, edge would the said respondents have over petitioner for having qualified the Secretariat Training Course. That petitioner is senior to said respondent is admitted and that being so, the onus of showing that, despite admitted seniority, he did not have a better claim of promotion against said respondent would automatically be on the official respondents who passed the impugned order. Reliance for showing fifth respondents superior claim to promotion has been placed on said respondents qualification of Secretariat Training Course, which as per submissions made by their counsel was essential for consideration of promotion to the post of Section Officer. This necessitates reference to the relevant rules.