Jharkhand High Court
Jayant Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 August, 2023
1
LPA No.35 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.35 of 2023
------
1. Jayant Kumar, aged about 60 years, son of Late Jai Krishna
Prasad Sinha , resident of Kumud Villa, Jeewan Gali, Harihar
Singh Road, Morhabadi, Post Morhabadi, Police Station Bariatu,
District Ranchi
2. Pranav Kumar Panda, aged about 50 years, son of Late
Dayanidhi Benimadhav Panda, resident of Manglam, Devi
Mandap Road, Back Red Rose School, Hesal, Post Hehal, Police
Station Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi
3. Manoj Kumar, aged about 51 years, son of Late Shiv Pujan
Prasad, son of Late Shiv Pujan Prasad, resident of Kusum
Apartment, 4 B, Kilburn Colony, Hinoo, Post Hinoo, Police Station
Doranda, District Ranchi
4. Shakti Samant, aged about 49 years, son of Krit Narayan Singh,
resident of Vimal Shyam Vihar Apartment, E 203, Second Floor,
Argora, Kathal Marg, Post Pundag, Police Station Argora, District
Ranchi
5. Prakash Kumar Verma, aged about 53 years, son of Late
Rameshwar Prasad Verma, resident of D-056, ATI Colony,
Officers Flat, Mayor Road, Post Kanke, Police Station Gonda,
District Ranchi .... .... Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Personal, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
officiating from Project Building, Post Dhurwa, Police Station
Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi;
3. The OSD, Personal, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi officiating from
Project Building, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Jagarnathpur,
District Ranchi;
2
LPA No.35 of 2023
4. The Member Board of Revenue officiating from Dhurwa, Post
Dhurwa, Police Station Dhurwa, District Ranchi
.... .... Respondents/Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Shatakshi, Advocte
Mr. S.B. Deo, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, AAG-IV
: Mr. Pradeep Kumar, AC to AAG-IV
------
09/Dated: 21.08.2023
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters
Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 04.01.2023 passed by
the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6396 of 2022, by
which, the writ petition has been disposed of with an observation for
consideration of the cases of the writ petitioners for promotion, if any such
occasion arises in future, the cases of the writ petitioners will be
considered as per rules.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ
petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-
3. It is the case of the writ petitioners that initially the petitioners
were appointed in the different department in Secretariat service and
completed the tenure as prescribed in Gazette Notification dated
24.10.2014.
4. The petitioners who are working in the different department
LPA No.35 of 2023
comes under the post of Upper Division Clerk and admittedly, all the
petitioners came under the category of UDC.
5. Thereafter, the Jharkhand Secretariat Service Rules, 2010 was
enacted and published in the Gazette on 02.08.2010. It would be
evident from the notifications dated 01.02.2012 and 01.10.2012 that
the appellants have been shown as Jharkhand Secretariat Clerical
Service.
6. Subsequently Gazette Notification dated 04.04.2014 was
published with regard to promotion and tenure (Grade Pay to Grade
Pay) and it was decided how the promotion is to be considered to the
next higher Grade. However, the said Gazette Notification dated
04.04.2014 was rectified by Gazette Notification dated 24.10.2014.
7. It would be evident from the Gazette Notification dated
24.10.2014 that it was clarified that that "even after the aforesaid
provision, if the posts remains vacant, the promotion of officers, who
have completed 20 years of service in the Government service and
has spent one year of the post held, in such situation the officer can
be promoted to vacant higher post.
8. The appellants were promoted to the post of Section Officer on
the recommendation of a duly constituted Departmental Promotion
Committee vide letter dated 04.12.2020. After completing one year
on the post of Section Officer and 20 years in the Government
Service, the appellants made a representation on 04.01.2022 before
the respondents for considering their case for promotion.
LPA No.35 of 2023
9. It will be evident from the letter dated 10.06.2022 that ACR,
vigilance Clearance and other details of the appellants were called
for and the name of the appellants were included in the list. The
details of the appellants were again called for on 20.06.2022.
10. The names of the appellants were placed before Departmental
Promotion Committee and it was under active consideration for
promotion.
11. The cases of the appellants were not considered because the
respondents did not find the appellants fulfilling the criteria laid down
for promotion. The appellants, thereafter, having no other option, filed
writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6396 of 2022 for a direction to the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion
from the post of Section Officer to the post of Under Secretary in
terms of resolution as contained in Memo No.10483 dated
24.10.2014 since they have completed 20 years of service as a
government employee and also held the post of Section Officer for
more than one year, but the learned Single Judge without taking
consideration the resolution as contained in memo no.10483 dated
24.10.2014, has disposed of the writ petition, hence, the present
appeal.
12. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that although, the writ petition was filed inter-alia therein
for the reliefs for consideration of cases of one or the other writ
petitioners based upon the resolution as contained in memo
LPA No.35 of 2023
no.10483 dated 24.10.2014.
13. The basis of seeking such prayer was that the Government
has come with a policy decision for consideration of cases of one or
the other Section Officers, if completed either 6 years of service or
completed 20 years of total service and one year remain in the post
of Section Officer.
14. The condition so stipulated regarding completion of 20 years
length of service and 1 year to be as Section Officer, has
subsequently been resolved through resolution as contained in
memo no.10483 dated 24.10.2014.
15. But, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition
by considering the case to be a simple case of consideration of
promotion.
16. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, it is not a
case where the question of junior having granted promotion or not,
rather, the basis of the case was resolution as contained in memo
no.10483 dated 24.10.2014 and as such, the order ought to have
been passed directing the State to consider the case on the basis of
the resolution as contained in memo no.10483 dated 24.10.2014,
therefore, the impugned order requires interference.
17. Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned AAG-IV appearing for the State has
submitted on the basis of the affidavit filed by the respondents in
pursuant to the order dated 20.02.2023 that the cases of the writ
petitioners were considered on the basis of the said resolution but
LPA No.35 of 2023
they have not found to be eligible.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in response
thereto, has submitted that whether the cases of the appellants were
considered or not, it is not known to the appellants.
19. Even accepting that the cases of the appellants were
considered but the order passed by the learned Single Judge, will
come in the way of consideration, since, the prayer sought for
consideration of promotion in the light of the resolution dated
24.10.2014, has not been taken into consideration therein.
20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as
also considered the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.
21. The main argument is that the order passed by the learned
Single Judge cannot be said to be in terms of the reliefs sought for
by the writ petitioners.
22. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument, deems it fit
and proper to refer the prayer made in the writ petition, which reads
as under:-
1. For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction particularly a
writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for
promotion from the post of Section Officer to the post of
Under Secretary in terms of resolution 10483 dated 24th
October, 2014 as the petitioners have completed 20 years of
LPA No.35 of 2023
service as a government employee and also hold the post of
Section Officer i.e. present position for more than one year
and they fall within the zone of consideration for promotion
under the resolution dated 24th October, 2014 (Annexure-
4/A);
2. For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction particularly a
writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the
concerned respondents not to deny the promotion to the
post of Under Secretary as the petitioners were appointed
and borne in the secretariat itself during the period 1989 to
1997, and their case is completely covered wide resolution
number 10483 dated 24.10.2014;
3. For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction particularly a
writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners against
the vacancies which is still in existence approximately 110
vacancies and petitioners come only left over persons who
are to be considered for the promotion as of Senior to the
petitioners were given promotion in the year 2022 and they
are not going to affect anybody's seniority;
4. For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction particularly a
writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for
promotion as their cases were recommended as Vigilance
LPA No.35 of 2023
clearance, Yearly ACR has been called on 20.6.22 and
10.6.22 and it was placed before the DPC but no
promotional order has been issued whereas the name of
persons who are senior to the petitioners have been
considered and they have been given promotion;
5. For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction particularly a
writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to consider the case of petitioners as been
appointed in the Secretariat.
23. It is evident from the reliefs sought for, as quoted and referred
hereinabove that the prayer was sought for by way of direction upon
the respondents to consider the case of one or the other writ
petitioners based upon the policy decision as contained in resolution
dated 24.10.2014.
24. Although, the State, in this appeal, in pursuant to the order
dated 20.02.2023 has filed an affidavit, basis upon which,
submission has been made that the cases of the writ petitioners
were considered in the light of the policy decision as contained in
resolution dated 24.10.2014.
25. The aforesaid stand having been been taken by the State
clarifies that the State is also in the opinion that the order passed by
the learned Single Judge is not in terms of the relief sought for.
26. This Court, in view thereof, is of the view that the order passed
by the learned Single Judge needs modification considering the fact
LPA No.35 of 2023
that the learned Single Judge, although, while disposing of the writ
petition has made an observation for consideration of case of the writ
petitioners but there is no reference while making such observation
regarding the policy decision as contained in resolution dated
24.10.2014.
27. Therefore, the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.6396 of 2022 is hereby modified to the
extent that let the cases of one or the other appellants/writ petitioners
be considered, if not considered in the light of the policy decision as
contained in resolution dated 24.10.2014, by taking decision in
accordance with law.
28. However, if decision has already been taken, same be
communicated forthwith.
29. It is made clear that passing of this order does not construed
that we have exercised our mind regarding the entitlement of the
cases of writ petitioners, rather, the cases will be considered, if not
considered by the authority depending upon the eligibility of one or
the other writ petitioners, as per the policy decision as contained in
resolution dated 24.10.2014 and other requirements, if any.
30. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
31. In consequence thereof, Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if
any also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Rohit/-N.A.F.R.
