HUMAYUN KABIR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondent State.

(2.) FROM the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner it appears that this is one more addition of the several Writ Applications filed by the Petitioner claiming his promotion to the post of Panchayat Sewak.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent State, by referring to the several paragraphs of the counter affidavit, would want to submit that even as informed to the Petitioner, on the last occasion i.e. in the year 2005, when the cases of the candidates were taken up for consideration, those candidates who were above the Petitioner in seniority, were absorbed. The Petitioner could not therefore be absorbed on account of limited number of vacancies at that time. Learned Counsel informs further that at the relevant time, there were 17 vacancies out of which 8 were filled up and since according to the Government Circular, 50 per cent of the vacancies are to be filled up by promotion and remaining by direct recruitment, necessary instructions have been issued for filling up the vacancies by direct recruitment and necessary steps would be taken to fill up the vacancies in the promotee quota on roster basis.