Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 85 (CHH)

SUJAN SINGH KANWAR v. STATE OF C. G.

2010-03-10

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners, by this petition, seek a direction to the respondents to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee (for short' D PC') for considering the case of the petitioners for promotion as Block Education Officer and further, to fill up vacant posts of Area Organizers/Block Education Officers from the Circle Organizers as per the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribe & Scheduled Caste Development (Gazetted) Service, Recruitment Rules, 2006 (for short 'the Rules, 2006'). 2. Facts in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Circle Organizers in the Scheduled Tribe & Scheduled Caste Welfare Department, in and around the year 1990. Some of the petitioners were selected through mini PSC and some of them were selected by direct recruitment through competitive exams. The service of the petitioners were governed by the Madhya Pradesh Adim Jati, Harijan and Pichda Varg Kalyan (Rajpatrit) Seva Bharti Niyam, 1969, (for short 'the Rules, 1969') which were amended vide notification dated 26.05.1992 (Almexure P/1) providing promotion of Circle Organizers on the post of Area Organizers. In the year 1994 further amendments were made in the Rules, 1969, providing transfer of Principals as Block Education Officers in the ratio of 60:40 percent thereby depriving Circle Organizers and Area Organizers from promotion as Block Education Officers. 3. Thereafter, the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribe & Scheduled Caste Development (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2006 (Annexure P/2) were framed. In the Rules, 2006, the earlier provision for transfer of the Principal as Block Education Officer has been deleted and it is provided that the post of Block Education Officer will be filled up by promotion from Area Organizers and remaining vacant posts will be filled up from the Circle Organizers. The DepaI1mental Promotion Committee held its meeting on 13.02.2008 wherein the cases of Area Organizers were considered for promotion to the post of Chief Executive Officers, Janpad Panchayat but the cases of the petitioners were not considered. There after, the petitioners made a representation (Annexure P/4) but of no avail. The DepaI1mental Promotion Committee held its meeting on 13.02.2008 wherein the cases of Area Organizers were considered for promotion to the post of Chief Executive Officers, Janpad Panchayat but the cases of the petitioners were not considered. There after, the petitioners made a representation (Annexure P/4) but of no avail. During the pendency of the petition, on one hand, the State by order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P/11) has transferred Principals/Lecturer of the School Education Department as In-charge, Block Education Officer and Chief Executive Officers in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, which are the promotional posts for the petitioners and on the other hand the respondent/State is not conducting the meeting of the DPC, contrary to the provisions of Rule 6(4) of the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003 (for short 'the Rules, 2003) which provides that the meeting of the DPC shall be held every year. It shall consider the suitability of the public servants for promotion separately with reference to the vacancies of each year and prepare the select list for the relevant year and thereafter the DPC shall consider the suitability of the public servants for promotion to fill up the existing and anticipated vacancies of the current year. Thus, non consideration of the case of the petitioners for promotion is violative of the Rules, 2006. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cited a decision of this Court dated 27.6.2005 in Writ Petition No. 4258/2004 (Abhishek Bajpai & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), wherein considering the facts situation that Rule 13 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Public Health Engineering (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1980 provides for holding DPC for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post regularly i.e. the Committee shall meet at intervals ordinarily not exceeding one year, the respondents/State were directed to hold the meeting of DPC, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 5. The petition was admitted for hearing on 17.4.2008. Since then despite grant of several opportunities, the respondents have chosen not to file return and have also not contested the matter seriously. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. 5. The petition was admitted for hearing on 17.4.2008. Since then despite grant of several opportunities, the respondents have chosen not to file return and have also not contested the matter seriously. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. The main grievance of the petitioners is that despite statutory provision as prescribed in Rule 13 of the Rules, 2006, no meeting of the DPC has been held to consider the case of the Circle Organizers/Area Organizers for promotion to the post of Block Education Officers. 8. Rules, 2003 provides for the rules relating to determination of the basis of promotion. Rule 6(4) of the Rules, 2003 prescribes that the meeting of the DPC shall be held every year to consider the suitability of the public servants for promotions to fill up the unfilled vacancies. In view of that, the State authorities are required to hold the meeting of the DPC every year to consider the cases of Circle Organizers/Area Organizers also for promotion to the post of Block Education Officer as per schedule (under Rule 6) to the Rules, 2006. 9. In Council of Scientific & Industrial Research & another Vs. K.S. Bhatt & another-1, the Supreme Court observed as under: 1. (1989) 4 SCC 635 "9. .....It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation public or private does not "hire a hand" but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward, "The organisation that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors. There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions." 10. The Supreme Court, while considering opportunity to consider for promotion, in Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain Vs. There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions." 10. The Supreme Court, while considering opportunity to consider for promotion, in Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India-2, observed as under: 2. (1990) Supp SCC 688 "7. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical' A' Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be funned within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the' A' category scientists in the non-medical wing of the Directorate". 11. In Food Corporation of India & Others Vs. Parashotam Das Bansal & Others-3, the Supreme Court observed as under: 3. (2008) 5 SCC 100 "12. When employees are denied an opportunity of promotion for long years (in this case 30 years) on the ground that they fell within a category of employees excluded from promotional prospect, the superior court will have the jurisdiction to issue necessary direction. 13. If there is no channel of promotion in respect of a particular group of officers resulting in stagnation over the years, the court although may not issue any direction as to in which manner a scheme should be formulated or by reason thereof interfere with the operation of existing channel of promotion to the officers working in different departments and officers of the Government but the jurisdiction to issue direction to make a scheme cannot be denied to a superior court of the country." 12. Further, in A. Satyanarayana & Others Vs. S. Purushottam & Others-4, the Supreme Court observed as under: 4. Further, in A. Satyanarayana & Others Vs. S. Purushottam & Others-4, the Supreme Court observed as under: 4. (2008) 5 SCC 416 "25. While saying so, we are not unmindful of the legal principle that nobody has a right to be promoted; his right being confined to right to be considered there for." 13. In view of the well settled principle of law on consideration of an employee for promotion to the higher post, the case of the petitioners may also be considered in the D PC held regularly as provided under Rule 6(4) of the Rules, 2003. If they are found fit and recommended for regular promotion, proper order may be passed. One may not loose sight of the fact that the promotion Rules, 2003 statutorily provides for holding of DPC meeting every year. Holding of the meeting for other categories of the people ignoring the claim of the Circle/Area Organizers is not sufficient compliance of the provisions of Rule 6(4) of the Rules, 2003. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The State authorities are directed to hold DPC meeting for considering the case of the petitioners for promotion in accordance with law if they are found within the zone of consideration on the basis of their seniority and other relevant factors. Further if they are found suitable and fit thereon, they may be recommended for promotion-to the higher post. The needful shall be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed