Pragas Mochi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 697 Jhar

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                       ----

W.P.(S) No. 7300 of 2019

----

1.Pragas Mochi, aged 52 years, son of Tapeshwar Mochi, resident of Village and PO-Lalgarh, PS-Bishrampur, District -Palamau

2.Anish Kumar Singh, aged 53 years, son of Braj Nandan Singh, resident of Village and PO-Kamgarpur, PS-Hussinabad, District-Palamau

3.Sudarshan Prasad Singh, aged 52 years, son of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Mayapur, PO-Gulabjhari, PS-Chhatarpur,District- Palamau

4.Gopal Prasad Singh, aged 52 years, son of Mithilesh Singh, resident of Village Tenta, PO-Kusa Narainpur, PS-Hussainabad, District -Palamau ....... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, MDI Building, HEC Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, District-Ranchi

3.Commissioner, Palamau Division, PO and PS-Medininagar, District-Palamau

4.Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, PO and PS-Medininagar, District-Palamau ...... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioners :- Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Advocate

----

4/12.02.2021 Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Rohan Kashyap, the learned counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. This matter relates to promotion of petitioners from the post of Revenue Karamchari to the post of Circle Inspector-cum-Kanoongo.

4. Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are senior and the junior persons have been provided the promotion whereas the petitioners have been left out. He submits that the petitioners have also passed in the departmental examination. He submits that the matter has already been set at rest in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(S) No.8/2020. He submits that

the matter can be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No.8/2020.

5. Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the matter is covered in view of the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No.8/2020.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(S) No.8/2020. The ratio decided in W.P.(S) No.8/2020 will also govern the case of the petitioners.

7. The petitioners are at liberty to move before the appropriate authority by way of filing representation annexing the documents including the said judgment and the same shall be considered by the competent authority.

8. The writ petition [W.P.(S) No.7300 of 2019] stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/,