Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1214 (JHR)

Rajendra Ravidas v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-12

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction upon the respondents for correction of final seniority list published vide Memo No. 1978 dated 02.04.2013, whereby the petitioner has been placed at Sl. No. 898 S.C. in the final seniority list. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the scheduled caste category. A provisional seniority list was published in the year, 2005. The petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 837 in the said list. Thereafter, the final seniority list was published by Memo dated 13.06.2007 and the petitioner was allotted Sl. No. 838. The petitioner was granted regular promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer. Vide memo dated 02.04.2013 another seniority list has been published in which the petitioner has been placed at Sl. No. 898 S.C. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 2 stating as under : “7. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Water Resources Department Jharkhand had published provisional gradation list of Assistant Engineers vide departmental memo no. 2559 dated 04.06.2012 (Annexure-5 of the writ application). In the said provisional gradation list the petitioner's name was placed at serial no. 899. 8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the concerned Engineers were directed to submit objections, if any with respect to their seniority in the provisional list. The petitioner and many other Engineers submitted their objections before the Department. 9. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the objection were considered by the Department and after examining them, the same were disposed of vide departmental memo no. 1977 dated 02.04.2013 (Annexure-8 of the writ application). It is relevant to mention here that reasons have been mentioned in the said departmental memo with regard to fixation of their seniority. 10. That it is humbly stated and submitted that in the final gradation list the petitioner has been placed at serial number 898. In the objection application submitted by the petitioner, it was claimed that his seniority should be fixed above the Engineers who were recruited in 1995 as Assistant Engineers. 11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the erstwhile Water Resources Department State of Bihar had made recruitment of Assistant Engineers in the year 1995. In the objection application submitted by the petitioner, it was claimed that his seniority should be fixed above the Engineers who were recruited in 1995 as Assistant Engineers. 11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the erstwhile Water Resources Department State of Bihar had made recruitment of Assistant Engineers in the year 1995. In the Seniority list published by the State of Bihar in 2008 the directly recruited Assistant Engineers have been placed above the Assistant Engineers who were promoted in between the year 1995 to 1997 from the post of Junior Engineer. 12. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Water Resources Department Jharkhand has prepared the gradation list on the basis of gradation list published by the Water Resources Department Bihar on the principle of equal treatment to similar persons.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before finalizing the seniority list which was published on 02.04.2013, the objection of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents. Relying on Annexure-8 at page 110 of the writ petition, he submits that case of Sri Bijay Kumar Paswan, Sri Surjan Kapardar, Sri Suresh Ram, Sri Akhileshwar Ram and the petitioner have been considered jointly and it does not appear that the objection of the petitioner has been considered independently by the respondents and therefore, this matter requires interference by this Court. He has produced a copy of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 2346 of 2013 and submits that in a similarly situated case, a learned Single Judge of this Court has granted an order of 'status-quo'. 6. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the persons who were directly appointed during the period 1995-1997, have been placed above the persons who were granted promotion in the rank of Assistant Engineer. He has supported the place assigned to the petitioner in the seniority list dated 02.04.2013 and has resisted the claim of the petitioner reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. 7. He has supported the place assigned to the petitioner in the seniority list dated 02.04.2013 and has resisted the claim of the petitioner reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. 7. A perusal of the documents on record, particularly the document at Annexure-8 to the writ petition, would disclose that the State Government has acted pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5996 of 2002 and therefore, the persons who were directly appointed as Assistant Engineer during the period 1995-1997 were placed above the persons who were granted promotion in the rank of Assistant Engineer. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in the year, 1991 and thereafter, promoted as Assistant Engineer. The petitioner has not produced even a copy of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5996 of 2002 and the learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out any basis on which the claim of the petitioner can be entertained. I am also of the view that the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 2346 of 2013 relates to persons who are not similarly situated to the petitioner. The persons in W.P.(S) No. 2346 of 2013 are directly appointed Assistant Engineers whereas, the petitioner is a promottee. The writ petition lacks merit and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.