Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 466 (JHR)

Kailash Rajak v. State of Jharkhand

2020-03-16

DEEPAK ROSHAN, H.C.MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. The appellant writ petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 29.11.2016, passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 896 of 2014, whereby the writ application filed by the appellant, claiming promotion to the posts of the District Mining Officer and Deputy Director Mines, has been dismissed by the Writ Court. 3. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Mining Officer on 26.07.1984, and was also made In-charge District Mining Officer, vide Notification dated 11.12.1990. He was also recommended for promotion to the post of District Mining Officer, w.e.f. 01.10.1992 in the Departmental Promotion Committee's meeting held on 04.11.1999, but by the time the recommendation came, the appellant was involved in a criminal case and the said promotion could not be given to him. The appellant was however, acquitted from the criminal charges on 24.11.2004. 4. While accepting the recommendations of the 5th Pay Revision Commission, by resolution No.660 dated 08.02.1999, the State Government had also prescribed the minimum qualification of having the degree in Mining Engineering for promotions to the post of District Mining Officer and higher posts, which qualification, admittedly the appellant was not having. Thereafter the Rules were also framed by the State of Jharkhand in the year 2011, prescribing the same minimum qualification for promotion to the post of District Mining Officer and the higher posts. 5. Thereafter the promotion to the post of District Mining Officer was made vide Notification dated 02.12.2010, but the petitioner was not given promotion on the post of District Mining Officer, in view of the fact that the petitioner was not having the necessary qualification of degree in Mining Engineering for the said post, which was prescribed in the year 1999 for the first time, when the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission were accepted by the State Government, and thereafter in the Rules framed by the State of Jharkhand in the year 2011. 6. 6. Apart from the fact that the appellant was not having that technical qualification, he was not given promotion also due to the fact that he belonged to Schedule Caste Category, and in the posts to be filled up by promotion, the roster point-6 was for the officer in Schedule Caste Category, which was kept reserved for another officer, who was having the required qualification of degree in Mining Engineering, for promotion to the said post. 7. However, the appellant was given the benefits of ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999, which was equivalent to the post of District Mining Officer. The appellant superannuated from the service on 30.11.2014. 8. The appellant had earlier filed the writ application claiming promotion to the posts of District Mining Officer and Deputy Director of Mines, being W.P.(S) No.3507 of 2010, which was disposed of by order dated 26,02.2013, with the direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand, to pass a speaking order on the petitioner's claim for promotion. Pursuant thereto the reasoned order has been passed on 18.12.2013, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the reasons detailed above. 9. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred another writ application, being W.P.(S) No. 896 of 2014, and the Writ Court by the impugned Judgment dated 29.11.2016 has found that though the petitioner was not having the required qualification for promotion to the post of District Mining Officer, but he was given the ACP benefits of the said post. The Writ Court also held that the promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Mines could not be given to the petitioner also in view of the fact that the Rules provided of five years continuous service on the post of District Mining Officer, for the promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Mines, which the petitioner was not having, as he was holding the post only on officiating basis. 10. Thus, from the impugned Judgment it is apparent that the appellant who has already superannuated from the post in the year, 2014, was given of the benefits to the post of District Mining Officer by way of ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999. 10. Thus, from the impugned Judgment it is apparent that the appellant who has already superannuated from the post in the year, 2014, was given of the benefits to the post of District Mining Officer by way of ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999. The claim of the appellant writ petitioner for further promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Mines could not be considered as he was not having the required qualification of degree in Mining Engineering, as also the required experience while working on the post of District Mining Officer on substantial basis for the minimum period of five years. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment dated 29.11.2016, passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 896 of 2014, rejecting the claim of the appellant and dismissing the writ application, worth any interference in exercise of the L.P.A. jurisdiction. 12. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.