Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 856 (JHR)

Kolha Sahu v. Ranchi University

2017-05-11

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Chandrashekhar, J. - Grievance of the petitioners is to grant of promotion to them w.e.f. 19.07.2007 instead of 02.02.1999 when promotion was granted to them in Grade-III. 2. The petitioners came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3194 of 2001 which was disposed of by order dated 27.01.2003 directing the respondents to consider their claim for promotion. The petitioners have not disclosed whether the cancellation order dated 16.02.1999 was challenged by them in W.P.(S) No. 3194 of 2001 or not. If challenge to order dated 16.02.1999 was thrown by the petitioners and it was rejected or if not thrown, in both the events challenge to order dated 16.02.1999 in the present proceeding fails. 3. The petitioner no. 1, he was appointed on 25.01.1979 as a Grade-IV employee, petitioner no. 2 on 05.03.1980 as a Labboy, petitioner no. 3 on 02.11.1979 on a Grade-IV post and, petitioner no. 4 as on 25.05.1980. They have not produced their letters of appointment. It appears that previously they were granted promotion in Grade-III by an order dated 02.02.1999 which was withdrawn on 16.02.1999 on the ground that the previous promotion order dated 02.02.1999 was issued fraudulently. The petitioners came to this Court again in W.P.(S) No. 3436 of 2003 and they filed application vide Cont. Case No. 258 of 2004, which was disposed on 18.11.2006 with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners and other eligible candidates, within three months. 4. Whole claim of the petitioners is founded on a plea that they have been working on Class-III post from different dates. Except order dated 02.02.1999 no order of a competent authority posting them on a Grade-III post has been produced by the petitioners. On the contrary letter dated 16.02.1999 indicates that they were reverted to Class-IV posts and thus, it would be inferred that they continued to work on Class-IV post. The petitioners have, in fact, admitted that all these years they were paid salary of Class-IV post. 5. In the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.