Sawna Oraon vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

J.C.S. Rawat, J.—This Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner for seeking Mandamus to consider his case for promotion to the higher post of the Assistant Engineer from the post of Junior Engineer with effect from the date his juniors viz Uttam Kujur and Imil Kandulna had been promoted.

In nut-shell, the Petitioner''s case is that he was joined as Junior Engineer in the year 1987 in the Road Construction Department of the State of Bihar and he was posted as Junior Engineer in the said Department. Since then, he had been working under the State of Bihar. The combined seniority list was prepared in the State of Bihar and it was published in which the Petitioner''s name figures at serial No. 1651 whereas aforesaid two persons namely Uttam Kujur and Imil Kandulna figures at serial No. 1815 and 1816 respectively. It is admitted that in the seniority list, above named two persons were junior to the Petitioner. It is alleged that the case of the above named two persons was considered by the Respondents in the year 2005 and they were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer but the case of the Petitioner was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and his juniors were promoted to the said post. When the Petitioner''s case was not considered, he preferred this writ petition.

The Respondents contested the petition and it is not denied in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner''s seniority as indicated in the writ petition is not correct, so it is admitted fact that the Petitioner is definitely senior and the other two persons whose names have been given above are junior to him. It is not also stated that the case of the Petitioner was considered and he was not found fit. The counsel for the Respondents could not demonstrate from the counter affidavit that the case of the Petitioner was considered by the D.P.C. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that now the allocation of cadre of Junior Engineer has been finalized under the provision of Bihar Re-organization Act and the Petitioner has been finally allocated to the State of Jharkhand and now the State of Jharkhand is competent to grant the promotion. They are preparing the gradation list and thereafter the promotion would be accorded to the Petitioner in accordance with law. This counter affidavit was filed on 5th September, 2006 and now we are running in 2011. The Respondents, at the last, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was senior and his name figures at serial No. 1651 whereas the names of the two other persons Uttam Kujur and Imil Kandulna figures at serial No. 1815 and 1816 in the gradation list (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). He further contended that when the junior persons as indicated above were promoted, the case of the Petitioner was not considered though he was senior to him.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents have refuted the contention and contended that due to non-allocation of the Petitioner as Junior Engineer in the State of Jharkhand, the promotion of the Petitioner could not be considered. He further contained that now the final allocation has been made, the case of the Petitioner after preparation of the gradation list would be considered.

It is settled principle of law that all the persons eligible for promotion should be considered in the D.P.C. and nobody would be left. In this case, the case of the Petitioner was left over even though the final allocation has not been made. Uttam Kujur and Imil Kandulna were promoted who were similarly situated persons in the State. Learned Counsel for the state could not demonstrate to me that the Petitioner does not figure at 1651 as indicated in Annexure-3 of writ petition. Learned Counsel for the State could not demonstrate to me that Uttam Kujur and Imil Kandulna were senior to the Petitioner. In absence of this, it is admitted that these persons are definitely junior to the Petitioner, so the Petitioner had a right to be considered at that time when these two persons were considered for the promotion.

In the facts and circumstances, I direct that the competent authority would constitute the D.P.C. within two months and the case of the Petitioner would be considered by the D.P.C. within one month thereafter and if the D.P.C. found fit the Petitioner, he may be promoted within a period of one month thereafter. This petition is disposed of. Accordingly, no order as to cost.