RAMA KANT SAHAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to hold the petitioner entitled for promotion on the post of Judicial Commissioner's Sheristedar in Ranchi Judgeship w.e.f 01.08.2005 and grant all consequential benefits and further prayer has been made for quashing decision/recommendation of the Screening Committee dated 16.08.2007 whereby the petitioner has been denied promotion on the said post and which has been agreed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi by its noting dated 30.08.2007 and also for quashing the previous decision of the Standing Committee dated 17.07.2006 which was affirmed vide order dated 27.06.2007 by the Appointment Committee.

(2.) The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Civil Courts, Ranchi vide order dated 15.11969 and retired on 31.08.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation as Head Clerk-cum-Judicial Commissioner's Sheristedar-In-charge, Civil Courts, Ranchi. It has been averred that the petitioner passed the Hindi Noting & Drafting Examination vide memo dated 29.05.1970 and also passed Departmental Examination and Proficiency Test vide memo dated 09.03.1984. It has further been averred that the petitioner got due promotions to Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade vide order dated 25.01985. By passage of time, the petitioner being the senior most in the cadre was made in-charge of Judicial Commissioner's Sheristedar in addition of his own duty as Head-Clerk. It has been averred that thereafter the matter of promotion to the post of Judicial Sheristedar was taken up by Standing Committee of Civil Courts, Ranchi on 17.07.2006 wherein the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 1 being the senior most among five candidates, but, the committee did not find any of them to be fit to be promoted on account of not having passed the Sheristedar Test as prescribed by the High Court, which is stated to be an essential qualification for promotion to the said post as envisaged in Rule 65 of Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV) Rules (herein after referred to as "Civil Court Rules" for the sake of brevity). Being aggrieved the petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.04.2007 before Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereupon though the Registrar, Civil Court made his office note observing categorically that petitioner being the senior most employee and has passed the required examination and further has sufficient knowledge is fit to be promoted. Thereafter, a meeting of Appointment Committee was held on 27.06.2007, which came to the finding that resolution of the Screening Committee 17.07.2006 will prevail with regard to promotion. Thereafter, the petitioner represented before the Hon'ble High Court on 09.07.2007, however, the said representation was remitted to Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi to dispose of the same in the light of fact as disclosed in the said representation, who again referred the matter to Screening Committee which took the decision that the finding of the earlier Screening Committee cannot be modified vide its minutes dated 16.08.2007, which was agreed by Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that main ground for denial of promotion is that the petitioner has not passed the Sheristedar Test, as prescribed under Rules 59 and 65 of the Civil Courts Rules. In this regard, it has been submitted with vehemence that no such test was ever held till the petitioner retired from services. However, the persons as mentioned in Annexure-14 series have been promoted on the said post, rightly so, as the Rules do not mandate such passing of test rather, Rule 65 says "test as prescribed", which means test "if any", hence, the petitioner does not challenge the relevant rules rather it is the respondents-authorities who misconstrued and misread the relevant rules. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision rendered in the case of Orissa State Prevention and Control of Pollution Board v. Orient Papers Mills as reported in AIR 2003 SC 1966. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondents have gathered an incorrect impression that the petitioner's claim is only intended to get monetary benefit. But, the well settled principle is that promotion confers status besides monetary benefit. If one is entitled to get promotion for a particular post, then he should be granted the same regardless of what pay-scale or monetary benefits would admissible to him. Grant of promotion is the cause and grant of pay-scale is the effect of such entitlement. It cannot be vice-versa and grant of promotion cannot depend upon the pay-scale.