Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1743 (JHR)

Shyam Sunder Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-06

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - Heard Mr. Vishal Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sharad Kaushal, associate counsel of learned A.A.G for the respondent-State. 2. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has interalia prayed for quashing the letter no.6/Chaibasa Anchal dated 03.07.2007 vide Annexure-11 issued by respondent no.2 pertaining to the promotion of the respondent no.5 as Senior Accounts Clerk and further prayer has been made for quashing of the letter dated 01.09.2006 and 16.10.2006 whereby the promotion given to the petitioner to the post of Senior Accounts Clerk has been cancelled and also for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Senior Accounts Clerk and also prayer has been made for payment of monetary benefits which has accrued in terms of the letter dated 15.06.2007 (Annexure-13) after making necessary corrections in the same to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits not from 17.07.1987 instead of 27.06.1987. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in giving promotion to respondent no.5 being junior to the petitioner amounts to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that before retirement from services, the petitioner though passed Account Examination but his case was not considered for promotion. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counteraffidavit dated 25.02.2008 has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been submitted that Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Division, Jamshedpur cancelled the promotion order vide order dated 01.09.2006 on the ground that the said promotion was made against the prescribed procedure and norms. It has further been submitted that since the petitioner did not pass Accounts Examination and he was not exempted by the department for such examination which is essential condition for promotion, hence cancellation of promotion of the petitioner is legal and justified. It has further been submitted that from the promotion order of the petitioner dated 26.11.2005, it is quite apparent that the said promotion was subject to condition that if any defect is found later on the promotion order, the same shall be cancelled as evident from Annexure-F to the counteraffidavit. It has further been submitted that from the promotion order of the petitioner dated 26.11.2005, it is quite apparent that the said promotion was subject to condition that if any defect is found later on the promotion order, the same shall be cancelled as evident from Annexure-F to the counteraffidavit. It has further been submitted that for promotion to the post of Senior Accounts Clerk, Departmental Accounts Examination was essential to be passed in spite of seniority. If senior employee does not pass the Departmental Accounts Examination and the junior employee passes the Department Accounts Examination then junior employee will be promoted on the post of Senior Accounts Clerks. 5. Supplementary counter-affidavit dated 13.04.2018 has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been submitted that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2009; since the petitioner passed the Departmental Examination in the year 2007, steps were being taken to grant promotion to the petitioner but in the meantime, the petitioner superannuated from services, his case for promotion was not considered though, at the relevant point of time, one post of Senior Accounts Clerk remained vacant. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the relevant documents on records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons stated hereinbelow: (I) Because of non-passing of the Account Examination, the promotion of the petitioner given earlier has been cancelled, therefore, there is no infirmity and illegality in the said order. (II) Passing of the Accounts Examination is a condition precedent for promotion to the post of Senior Accounts Clerks as disclosed from the counter-affidavit, as the petitioner passed the Accounts Examination in 2007, the petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Accounts Clerk after 2007 but while his case was being considered for promotion, in the meantime, he superannuated from services on 31.12.2009. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that after passing of the Accounts Examination by the petitioner, any junior to the petitioner has been promoted during interregnum period of passing of Accounts Examination and superannuation from services i.e. 31.12.2009. 7. In that view of the matter, no case is made out to warrant interference in the aforesaid writ application. 7. In that view of the matter, no case is made out to warrant interference in the aforesaid writ application. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.