AKHILESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE original writ petition has been amended with few additional prayer. Those additional prayers sought to be incorporated were allowed on 19.7.2013 when I.A. No. 3931 of 2013 was pressed for the said purpose by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Amongst the original and additional prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to the following two prayers: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite being in service since 1981 he has been holding the post of Computer till today and has not been given the substantive promotion, though he has the qualification of Graduation in Mathematics and is entitled to the higher post of Research Officer, Deputy Director in the Institute after having acquired the higher qualification of Master Degree and Rural Management while in service. It is submitted that all these facts have been overlooked by the respondents when they have chosen to pass the impugned order on 7.5.2013 during the pendency of the writ application. It is submitted that the respondents have chosen to be guided by the Jharkhand State Clerk/Clerk cum Typist/Typist and other Clerical Service Cadre(Recruitment, Promotion & other Service Conditions) Rules, 2010. However, by referring to Rule 4 thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the minimum qualification for entry in such service as laid down is Intermediate, while the post on which the petitioner was appointed was having entry level qualification of Graduation. In support of the aforesaid contention he has again relied upon Annexure 13 and 13/1 dated 13.12.1990 and 18.9.1990 which indicate that post of Computer required the minimum educational qualification of Graduation with Mathematics or Statistics. It is therefore submitted that the entire case of the petitioner has been addressed on wholly incorrect approach and in the process any substantive promotion which he deserves to next higher post has been denied. This is also not reasonable as it would lead to stagnation in service after having remained for more than 30 years on the same post in the Institute in question. The grant of A.C.P. alone is not enough when there are no promotional avenues for the said post. He has also referred to Rule 3 of 2010 Rules as per which the post of Head Clerk is a promotional post and enjoys the scale of R. 5000 -8000 like that of the petitioner who is holding original post of Computer in the Institute till date. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order deserves to be quashed and further, case of the petitioner should be considered for grant of regular promotion to the next higher posts.