Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1128 (JHR)

Kamlesh Prasad Sinha v. Sanjay Kumar

2011-12-20

D.N.PATEL

body2011
ORDER By the Court.-Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are challenging the Memo No.1605 dated 8th July, 2011 [Annexure-9 in WP(S) No. 4016 of 2011 and Annexure 8 in WP (S) No. 5017 of 2011], which contains order dated 8th July, 2011, whereby promotion given to the petitioners to the posts of Excise Inspector on the basis of the Recommendation Committee has been cancelled. Earlier, the promotions were given on 3rd June, 2011 and vide the aforesaid order, these promotions were withdrawn. 2. Counsel for the respondents submitted that according to Rules, 50% out of the total vacant post of the Inspector of Excise is to be filled up by direct recruitment and the other 50% by promotion and at the time the petitioners were given promotions, out of 37 posts of Inspector of Excise, only eight were vacant and the promotions were wrongly given by the Establishment Committee to the petitioners due to some miscalculation and after the said promotion, there became 40 Inspectors of Excise, against the sanctioned post of 37 i.e. the working strength was more than the sanctioned posts, which was absolutely illegal. Therefore, the promotion which was wrongly given to the petitioner was withdrawn within a period of one month time. The counsel for the respondents further submitted that the said Establishment Committee, while making recommendation, ought to have mentioned as to what was the position of vacancy and the eligibility criteria of the promotion. All these factors did not find place in the proceeding of the said recommendation of the Establishment Committee. 3. However, it is assured by the counsel for the respondents that now, after regular promotion to the Excise Inspectors, total number of vacant post of the Inspector of Excise has become 13 and as per instruction from Dy. Commissioner, Dept of Excise (HQ), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, these 13 posts of Excise Inspector will be f1lled up by promotion after following proper procedures like vigilance clearance etc, and therefore, the respondents may be granted three weeks time to consider the case of the petitioners also for their promotion to the post of Excise Inspector. 4. Commissioner, Dept of Excise (HQ), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, these 13 posts of Excise Inspector will be f1lled up by promotion after following proper procedures like vigilance clearance etc, and therefore, the respondents may be granted three weeks time to consider the case of the petitioners also for their promotion to the post of Excise Inspector. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties and looking to the counter-affidavit, it appears that as per rule 50% out of the total vacant post of the Inspector of Excise is to be filled up by direct recruitment and the other 50% by promotion and at the time the petitioners were given promotions, out of 37 posts of Inspector of Excise, only eight were vacant and the promotions were wrongly given by the Establishment Committee to the petitioners due to some miscalculation and after the said promotion, there were 40 Inspectors of Excise, against the sanctioned post of 37 i.e. the working strength was more than the sanctioned posts, which was absolutely illegal. Therefore, the promotion which was wrongly given to the petitioner was withdrawn within a period of one month time. It has further been assured in the counter-affidavit (para No. 7(i) in the counter-affidavit filed in WP (S) No. 4016 of 2011 and para No. 15 in the counter-affidavit filed in WP(S) No. 5017 of 2011 that now 13 clear vacancies on the post of Inspector of Excise is available which are to be filled up by promotion and the respondents are willing to consider the case of the petitioners after observing the proper procedure for which they required three weeks time. 5. I therefore, direct respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the fact admitted in the counter-affidavit [para No. 7(i) in the counter-affidavit filed in WP (S) No. 4016 of 2011 and para No. 15 in the counter-affidavit filed in WP (S) No. 5017 of 2011] that now there are 13 clear vacancies to be filled up by promotion. This decision will be taken by the respondents after observing the proper procedure like Vigilance clearance etc., in accordance with law, rules, regulations, policies and Government enforceable orders, applicable to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of an order of this Court, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his representative. 6. Counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with the aforesaid direction and it is prayed before this Court that the respondents may not take unnecessarily long time in deciding the matter and that they should stick to the three weeks time limit stipulated by this Court, within which the eligible candidates be granted promotion. 7. It is, therefore, expected from the high ranking officers of the State that all the necessary procedures will be completed within the aforesaid time limit stipulated by the Court. 8. Interim relief given earlier stands vacated in the light of the aforesaid final order. 9. This writ petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid directions. Petition disposed of.