TARA PRATAP RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS , in this writ application, who were appointed on the post of Constables in the Excise Department in between January, 1977 to February, 1980, have prayed for an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Memo No. 827 dated 21.6.2007 (Annexure -2), by Which promotion has been given to Respondent Nos. 6 to 22 and further, for a direction upon the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for their appointment on the post of Assistant Sub -Inspector (Excise) by promotion after giving relaxation in their age.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that on the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the services of the petitioners were placed under the State of Jharkhand. The petitioners are matriculates and above and possess the requisite qualifications. The contention of the petitioners is that by virtue of their educational qualifications and longstanding experience with unblemished service records, they were eligible for their promotion to the post of Assistant Sub -Inspector (Excise). The State Government, however, did not undertake any exercise for promotion of the petitioners even during the period of more than six years after bifurcation of the State.

(3.) MR . Anil Kr. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that on account of the inaction of the Respondents to initiate steps for promotion for more than six years, even though as many as 42 vacancies existed during such period, the claim of the petitioners for their promotion, has been. sought to be frustrated on the ground that they have crossed the upper age limit of 50 years. Learned counsel argues that such age criteria cannot be made applicable to the petitioners only when promotion to other candidates could be granted by relaxing their upper age limit. Learned counsel argues further that the plea taken by the Respondents in their counter affidavit that relaxation of age was granted to the 15 constables on account of the fact that they were officiating as A.S.ls. for several years, is a totally unreasonable stand, since the petitioners equally qualify by virtue of their proficiency both in Hindi and in English and their longstanding experience of more than 25 years should also have been counted in their favour.