SHYAM NANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.4.2004 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the prayer made through the representation filed, pursuant to order of this Court for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub -Inspector of Excise has been refused. Further prayer is to direct the respondent to promote the petitioner on the post of Assistant Sub -Inspector of Excise.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable of Excise on 7.1.1976 and since then he has worked to the full satisfaction of the authority and there has not been any black spot in the entire service career and when gradation list was prepared, he was placed at serial No. 414 whereas Shri Arun Kumar Jha and Shri Narayan Mishra were placed at serial No. 472 and 473 but both of them were given officiating/adhoc promotion in the year 1995 to the post of Assistant Sub -Inspector of Excise completely ignoring the seniority of the petitioner and, therefore, several representations were filed but those representations did not bear any result and hence the petitioner had to file writ application bearing W.P.(S) No. 1527 of 2004 which was disposed of by directing the petitioner to file fresh representation and the respondents were directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate decision. Accordingly, representation was filed which was rejected on 30.4.2004 on the ground that said Arun Kumar Jha and Narayan Mishra junior to the petitioner were never given regular promotion, rather they were asked to discharge the duties of Assistant Excise Inspector and that cadre being not finalized the authorities at Jharkhand was not competent to take decision in the matter of promotion, rather authorities at Bihar was competent to do so and on being aggrieved with that order, the petitioner has preferred this writ application and while the mater was pending, department has given promotion to 7 constables to the post of Assistant Sub -Inspector, vide order dated 11.5.2007 and again on 25.5.2007 and 20.6.2007 15 persons were promoted on that post leaving the case of the petitioner, though petitioner is senior to all of them.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel submits that order refusing promotion to the petitioner is not only discriminatory but also arbitrary as on the one hand it is said that the petitioner was denied promotion as he had completed 50 years of age on the cut -of date but some of the persons, namely, Govind Singh, Arun Kumar Jha, Rajendra Prasad and Anand Mehra who were promoted, vide memo No. 686 dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure B) are more older than this petitioner meaning thereby that all of them had attained more than 50 years on the cut -off date, still they were promoted to the said post but petitioner was denied promotion. Under these situations, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is fit to be allowed.