Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 127 (JHR)

Daniel Lakra v. Central Silk Board, Bangalore

2011-02-24

A.R.PRASAD

body2011
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the departmental promotion committee on taking into account the annual confidential report of last five years did not find the petitioner, working on the post of Assistant Director, Central Tasar Research and Training Institute, Ranchi, fit to be promoted and hence, he was not promoted to the post of the Deputy Director in the month of April, 2006 though junior to him was promoted on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee just after six months i.e. in the month of October, 2006, the petitioner was promoted to the post of the Deputy Director considering the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner of the same last five years and as such action of the respondent is tainted with arbitrariness. 3. Learned counsel further submits that if the A.C.Rs. of the last five years were considered to be good for promoting the petitioner to the post of the Deputy Director in the month of October, 2006 then how the same A.C.Rs. for the last five years could be taken to be otherwise at earlier point of time when the junior to the petitioner was promoted. Under that situation, action of the respondents can certainly be said to be discriminatory and arbitrary. 4. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Board by referring to Annexure-B annexed with the counter-affidavit submits that A.C.R. of this petitioner never warranted him to be promoted to the post of the Deputy Director and hence he had rightly been refused promotion in the Month of April 2006 but as soon as some posts fell vacant, he was given promotion on ad hoc basis. As such, the petitioner can never be said to have been given regular promotion in the month of October, 2006, and as such, there is no force in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 5. As such, the petitioner can never be said to have been given regular promotion in the month of October, 2006, and as such, there is no force in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 5. The stand taken on behalf of the respondents seems to be contrary to the statement made in Paragraph No. 25 of Page No. 14 of the counter-affidavit which reads as follows:- Finally when the services of the petitioner were found satisfactory and some improvement in his performance was noted (as is evident from the Annual Confidential Reports for previous two years of his retirement) at the fag end of his service, the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee which met during October, 2006 examined his case and noted some improvement in his performance and recommended his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Admn. and Acts.) and promotion order was issued to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 13th November, 2006 after obtaining prior approval of the Administrative Ministry with the terms and conditions specifically mentioned therein. From the above facts, it is very clear that no violation in filling up of the post of Deputy Director (Admn. and Accts.) under Central Silk Board has taken place and the petitioner is not eligible for any reliefs as claimed by him in the writ petition. 6. From the said averment, it would be evident that the petitioner was given promotion in the month of October, 2006 on the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee and hence, it can never be said to be a case of ad hoc promotion. 7. From the said averment it further appears that when the recommendation was made by Departmental Promotion Committee in the month of October, 2006 for promotion of the petitioner the A.C.Rs. of last five years were taken into account and as there was improvement in the performance in the last two years, the petitioner was considered to be fit to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director, but the same A.C.Rs. of last five years including the A.C.Rs. of last two years were never considered to be good enough in the month of April, 2006 warranting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director. of last five years including the A.C.Rs. of last two years were never considered to be good enough in the month of April, 2006 warranting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director. In absence of any explanation in this regard it is beyond any comprehension as to why the same A.C.R. at one point of time was considered to be bad and at other point of time was considered to be good enough to make recommendation for promotion to the petitioner. This simply smacks arbitrariness on the part of the authority not to make recommendation for promotion of the petitioner in April, 2006 rather to make recommendation to promote junior to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to promotion with effect from the month of April, 2006. Consequently, he would be entitled to other benefits.