RISHI NANDAN Vs. JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues involved in both the writ petitions are "Whether the private respondents in W.P.(S) No. 4187 of 2018 are senior to the petitioners and have been granted promotion rightly or illegally and arbitrarily, they have been considered for promotion?" and as such they have been tagged and heard together on various dates physically as well as through video conferencing and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 4187 of 2018 have knocked door of this Court for quashing and setting aside the Notification bearing no. 1622, dtd. 1/8/2018, issued vide Memo No. 1623, dtd. 1/8/2018, whereby respondent no. 6 has been granted promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondent to consider case of petitioners for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer or any equivalent posts, in view of the fact that petitioners are the senior most Electrical Engineers (General Cadre).

(3.) According to the petitioners, petitioner no. 1 had been appointed as unskilled Khalasi on 26/12/1995 whereas the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had been appointed as Controller on 4/11/1997. After their appointment, they obtained higher qualification or Degree in Electrical Engineering or otherwise became entitled for appointment to the post of Electrical Engineer. In view of internal advertisement issued vide Employment Notice No. 1/1999, dtd. 2/2/1999, petitioners applied and were duly selected and appointed to the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer on 13/6/2000. In addition to internal advertisement, an external advertisement was also issued vide Employment Notice No. 3/1999 in which respondent nos. 6 to 16 were appointed to the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer. However, both the processes of appointment initiated by the then Bihar State Electricity Board were pursuant to a common recruitment process but due to delay in completion of appointment process relating to Internal Advertisement No. 1/1999, the petitioners were issued appointment letters on subsequent dates as against appointment letters issued in favour of respondent nos. 6 to 16 to the post of Assistant Electrical Engineers. However, the petitioners were treated senior to respondent nos. 6 to 16 in the cadre of Assistant Electrical Engineers (General Cadre) of the erstwhile BSEB and a tentative Gradation List were issued vide Memo No. 565, dtd. 5/5/2008 followed by final Gradation List dtd. 26/2/2009.