AKHOURI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing memo dated 07.06.2013 (Annexure-11), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of Ad-hoc promotion to the post of Superintendent of Excise and thereafter Assistant Commissioner of Excise, has been rejected and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 07.06.2013 and also for quashing letter dated 03.11.2015 (Annexure-12), whereby the claim of the petitioner for promotion has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts, as delineated in the writ application, is that petitioner was appointed on 13.03.1989 as an Excise Inspector and thereafter in the year 1999, the petitioner was made In-charge Excise Superintendent and since then he is continuing on that post. It has further been averred that in the provisional seniority list dated 11.12007 the name of the petitioner was placed at serial no. 5, but the person junior to him has been promoted vide notification dated 012008. It has further been averred that in the meeting of 'Departmental Promotion Committee' held on 27.07.2010, the case of the petitioner was considered and the committee decided to adopt sealed cover procedure as Vigilance Case No. 34 of 2003 was pending against the petitioner. It has further been averred that again the meeting of 'Departmental Promotion Committee' was held on 30.07.2012, after lapse of two years but sealed cover was not opened and during that period several persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted vide notification dated 29.06.2011 to the post of Excise Superintendent. It has further been averred that vide notification dated 06.12012 further promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Excise was given to the persons junior to the petitioner and the petitioner was left out. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 5257 of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 5.11.2012 with the consent of parties, as the case of the petitioner was squarely covered by the judgments delivered in W.P. (S) No. 4971 of 2007 and W.P. (S) No. 4689 of 2007. But, even after that no formal order of promotion was passed in favour of petitioner, hence the petitioner left with efficacious, alternative remedy approached this Court for the redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned G.A being assisted by Mr. Kaustav Panda, Associate Counsel to learned G.A for the respondents.