Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 174 (JHR)

Satish Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-01-24

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – Grievance of the petitioner is that vide notification dated 04.05.2016 persons junior to him have been granted promotion while he was illegally excluded from consideration. The petitioner has made a prayer for grant of promotion in Category-9. 2. Heard. 3. The materials brought on record would disclose that the petitioner is senior to the persons at serial nos. 2 to 5 in notification dated 04.05.2016. In the seniority list prepared by the department his name appears at serial no.2 whereas, the name of one Ishwar Singh and others find place below the petitioner. The petitioner has asserted that he was appointed on 24.07.1978 on the post of Statistical Assistant and on 24.07.1982 he was confirmed in service. The respondent-State in its counter-affidavit has also admitted that vide memo dated 27.01.2016 his service stands confirmed. However, in the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee which was held on 29.03.2016 his case was not considered for promotion in Category 9 (Statistics) on account of vigilance clearance and confirmation of his service. Now it is admitted by the respondents that on account of negligence of the concerned officer necessary information in respect of confirmation in service was not forwarded to the DPC, however, vigilance clearance was received only on 17.05.2016. In the light of the aforesaid facts, claim of the petitioner for promotion in Category 9 was not considered. 4. Now, the petitioner has based his claim on the plea that his juniors have been granted promotion, and this is an admitted fact. The respondents have pleaded that process for granting promotion to the petitioner has now been initiated. It is proposed that against the vacancy in ST category his name would be forwarded for promotion and from 01.04.2017 it would be transferred to the General category vacancy which would occur on superannuation of one Ishwar Singh. The respondents have further pleaded that the aforesaid proposal has been forwarded to the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reform and Rajbhasha and after the clearance is received from the Personnel Department, necessary steps shall be taken, in accordance with law. 5. In view of the fact that vigilance clearance was received on 17.05.2016, that is, after the DPC, no exception can be taken of exclusion of the petitioner from consideration in the DPC dated 29.03.2016 and no direction can be issued for his promotion. 5. In view of the fact that vigilance clearance was received on 17.05.2016, that is, after the DPC, no exception can be taken of exclusion of the petitioner from consideration in the DPC dated 29.03.2016 and no direction can be issued for his promotion. However, it is expected that the Department shall take necessary steps in the light of its stand taken in the counter-affidavit. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of.