Ajay Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2435 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                        W.P.(S). No. 5931 of 2017

     Ajay Kumar Pandey                                                 ...........        Petitioner
                                                  Versus
     The State of Jharkhand & Ors.                     ...........   Respondents
                                           --------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK (Through: Video Conferencing) For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate

---------

22/ 20.07.2021 In the instant writ application, petitioner is claiming seniority over the direct recruits of the year 2012.

It has been argued by Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the appointment of Company Commander made in the year 2012 is totally illegal and dehors the rules. Learned counsel further argues that at the relevant point of time, there was no rule in existence which talks of direct appointment of Company Commander rather the rule only talks of appointment of Company Commanders by way of promotion. The case of the petitioner was considered and he was granted promotion in the year 2015. In the instant writ application petitioner is aggrieved by seniority list in which direct recruits of the year 2012 have been shown senior to the present petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on several judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and submits that where appointments itself were not in accordance with Rules, Company Commanders who were appointed through direct recruitment cannot claim seniority over the promotees.

On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that already a decision has been taken but the petitioner has not challenged the minutes of meeting dated 02.09.2006 and in absence of any challenge thrown to the minutes of meeting, the writ petition itself is not maintainable.

Upon hearing the submissions of the parties, it appears that this case requires hearing in detail.

Admit.

Since the pleading is already complete and parties have appeared, list this case under the heading for "Hearing", in usual course.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/