AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 244 wordsDr. Anshuman, J
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed for granting promotion to the petitioner as Upper Division Clerk (UDC).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a representation dated 29.08.2024 (as contained in Annexure P/5 to the writ petition) before the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, but till date no decision has been taken on the said representation. Learned counsel further submits a counter affidavit has been filed but paragraph wise reply has not been given in the said counter affidavit rather adhesive reply has come only with a direction that his promotion shall be considered in the next meeting of District Screening Committee.
Learned counsel for the State submits that a direction may be issued for disposal of the petitioner's representation within a specified period.
In the aforesaid background, the respondent no.2, namely, the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, is directed to take a decision on the representation dated 29.08.2024 (as contained in Annexure P/5
to the writ petition) within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
It is needless to state that, if the petitioner is found entitled to promotion by the District Screening Committee, the same shall be granted to him in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.