Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 256 (PAT)

Ram Chandra Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2005-03-04

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to promote him to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from the date his juniors have been promoted. 3. Precisely, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, and, accordingly, the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter to be referred to as "DPC") constituted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as "BPSC") took a decision on 5.2.1998 and recommended names of altogether 95 persons and the name of the petitioner figures at serial no. 7 according to seniority. Thereafter, vigilance clearance was sought for and the Cabinet (Vigilance) cleared the case of the petitioner for promotion, but to the utter surprise of the petitioner he came to know that many of his juniors, who were recommended along with him, were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, altogether ignoring his case. In paragraph nos. 14 and 17 of the writ application. instances have been given showing that the juniors to the petitioners, who were recommended along with him, were promoted. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. This writ application, in this view of the matter, is being disposed of on the basis of the averments made in the writ application. 6. It appears that the case of the petitioner was recommended by the DPC constituted by the BPSC as far back as on 5.2.1998 along with the juniors to him.The Vigilance has given clearance, so far the petitioner is concerned, but the petitioner was not promoted whereas his juniors were promoted. 7. Ordinarily, in case the DPC recommends a Government employee for promotion and Vigilance clearance etc. are obtained then in normal course promotion is granted to him/her, save and except in case departmental proceeding is found to be pending against the Government servant. 8. In paragraph 22 of the writ application, it has been stated that no departmental proceeding/judicial inquiry was pending against the petitioner during his service tenure. 9. From the facts, as enumerated above, it appears that the petitioner was eligible for promotion, and, therefore, his case was recommended by the DPC along with some of his juniors. It further appears that there was vigilance clearance and no departmental proceeding, whatsoever, was pending against him. 10. 9. From the facts, as enumerated above, it appears that the petitioner was eligible for promotion, and, therefore, his case was recommended by the DPC along with some of his juniors. It further appears that there was vigilance clearance and no departmental proceeding, whatsoever, was pending against him. 10. In this view of the matter, it is held that the petitioner was eligible for promotion and necessary notification would have been issued by the State Government promoting him on the post of Assistant Engineer keeping in view that his juniors were already promoted. 11. Considering this aspect of the matter and for the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential monetary benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. No order as to costs.