RAVINDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 19.7.2004 and with a further prayer for grant of promotion to the petitioner on the post of Head-Clerk. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed on a Class-IV post on 6.6.1973 and respondent No. 6 was appointed on 3.11.1973. It appears that when one Tarini Shankar Kabi was promoted on the post of Head-Clerk and consequently, the respondent No. 6 was reverted from the post of Head-Clerk, he approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5696 of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of on 15.9.2003 with a direction to the Secretary, P.H.E.D. Government of Jharkhand to give reasonable opportunity to the respondent No. 6 and the said Tarini Shankar Kabi and to decide the issue afresh. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, by impugned order dated 19.7.2004. it has been ordered that though the promotion granted to the said Tarini Shankar Kabi was legal or illegal could not be decided as the record was not produced however, as the respondent No. 6 who is senior to the petitioner, was illegally reverted from his promoted post, it has been thus decided that the respondent No. 6 should be given promotion on the post of Head-Clerk and if necessary, petitioner can be reverted to the lower post. Challenging the said order dated 19.07.2004, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State whereunder a plea has been taken that by order dated 23/24.12.1980, the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 6 were promoted/appointed on Grade III post. In the said order it has been mentioned that the respondent No. 6 would be appointed with effect from 6.6.1973 whereas, the petitioner would be appointed w.e.f. 3.11.1973 and in that view of the matter, the respondent No. 6 is senior to the petitioner and therefore, he was granted promotion.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 whereunder a similar stand has been taken by the respondent No. 6 stating that since by the same order dated 23/24.12.1980 both, the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 6 were promoted however, the date of promotion of the respondent No. 6 has been shown as 20.06.1980, therefore, respondent No. 6 was senior to the petitioner. It has been contended that since several persons junior to the respondent No. 6 were promoted, the respondent No. 6 had gone to the Hon'ble High Court by filing writ petition in which a direction was given by the Hon'ble High Court to consider his case. In the impugned order dated 19.7.2004 it has been recorded that the respondent No. 6 was wrongly reverted to the lower post inspite of being senior to the petitioner. A Chart indicating the seniority as well as order of the High Court and other documents have been brought on record.