Sadhna Kunjam vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 357 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                          NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       Writ Petition (S) No. 2440 of 2021

      Sadhna Kunjam D/o Late Shri Narendra, Aged About 32 Years, W/o
      Shri Kansari Bhardwaj, R/o Aadi Kanya Aashram, Village- Post-
      Barsoor, Tahsil- Gidam, District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

                                                                  ---- Petitioner

                                    Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare And
      Schedule Caste Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal
      Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. Director, Tribal Welfare And Ex- Officio Secretary, State Level Tribal
      Development, Residential And Educational Institutions Committee,
      Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   3. Collector Dantewada And Ex- Officio President, C.G. District Level
      Tribal     Development,   Residential   And   Educational       Institutions
      Committee,      Eklavya   Awasiya    Vidyalaya,   Katekalyan,      District-
      Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

   4. Assistant Commissioner And Ex- Officio Secretary, C.G. District Level
      Tribal     Development,   Residential   And   Educational       Institutions
      Committee,     Eklavya    Awasiya    Vidyalaya,   Katekalyan,     Districti-
      Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
                                                            ---- Respondents

For Petitioner           :      Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate
For State                :      Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate


                     Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                Order On Board
16.06.2021

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition seems to be

the non availability of channel of promotion for the post of Laboratory

Attendant on which post the petitioner has been working since last

more than 6-7 years.

2. According to the petitioner, under the service regulations governing the

field, a Laboratory Attendant does not have a channel of promotion

and a person who has been appointed as a Laboratory Attendant

would retire on the same post without any progress in his/her service

career.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the department there is

another post that of Laboratory Assistant which carries higher pay

scale than the Laboratory Attendant and the post of Laboratory

Assistant has also got a separate channel of promotion. It is also the

contention of the petitioner that the nature of the work discharged by

Laboratory Attendant and Laboratory Assistant are almost similar if not

identical the requirement of the educational qualification also for the

two post are the same. Therefore, the post of Laboratory Assistant can

and may be considered to be the promotional post from the post of

Laboratory Attendant and considering the experience that the petitioner

has at least the respondents may be directed to consider the petitioner

for promotion to the post of Laboratory Assistant by necessary

amendment to the Rules, on account of which she can have her

carreer growth in due course of time.

4. All said and done, the creation of a channel of promotion and switching

over from one cadre to another cadre giving preferential right are all

matters which are exclusively within the domain of the State Govt. and

unless the rules provide for the same, the High Court in exercise of its

writ jurisdiction would not be justified in giving any appropriate direction

in a nature of mandamus firstly directing the respondents for creating a

channel of promotion, secondly in permitting the petitioner for switching

the cadre and thirdly for grant of any preferential right on the post of

Laboratory Assistant. Since these are matters as already held one

under the domain of the State Govt., it is the state authorities who are

the best persons to take a decision.

5. Under the circumstances the petitioner is at liberty, in addition to the

representation that she has already made, to make a fresh

representation supported with all relevant documents in support of her

contention to the concerned authorities and on such representation

being made, the state authorities are expected to take a decision at the

earliest. While taking a decision by the respondents, it is expected that

they would take note of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of State of Tripura Vs. K. K. Roy reported in (2004) 9 SCC 65

and also in the case of O. Z. Hussain (Dr.) Vs. Union of India, 1990

supp SCC 688.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition at this juncture stands

disposed of.

Sd/-

P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai