Jharkhand High Court
Md. Jamil Akhtar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 September, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 316 of 2024
1. Md. Jamil Akhtar, aged about 59 years, son of Late Md. Nizamuddin,
resident of 3A, Sanskriti Apartment, Laxmipara, Doranda, Post
Doranda, Police Station Doranda, District Ranchi, State of Jharkhand.
2. Amresh Kumar, aged about 59 years, son of Rajendra Prasad Pandey,
resident of 1 C, Block B, Jai Shree Green City, Pundag Road, Argora,
Post Argora, Police Station Argora, District Ranchi, State of
Jharkhand.
3. Vijay Kumar Rastogi, aged about 60 years, son of Late Virendra
Kumar, resident of Arsa Height, North Office Para, Doranda, Post
Doranda, Police Station Doranda, District Ranchi, State of Jharkhand.
.............. Petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4/Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi officiating from Nepal House, Post Doranda, Police
Station Doranda, District Ranchi, State of Jharkhand;
3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi officiating from Project
Bhawan, Dhurwa, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Jagarnathpur, District
Ranchi, State Jharkhand.
............... Respondents/Respondents
4. Anil Kumar Singh, aged about 60 years, son of Late Amrendra
Narayana Singh, resident of Road No.3, Vikas Nagar, Latma Road,
Singh More, Post Hatia, Police Station Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi,
State of Jharkhand.
....... Petitioner No.1/Proforma Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants: Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Shatakshi, Advocate
For the Resp-State: Md. Shahabuddin, S.C.-VII
Mr. Suraj Prakash, A.C. to S.C.-VII
---------
05/Dated: 26.09.2024
M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral)
1) Heard both sides.
2) This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 23rd April, 2024
passed in W.P. (S) No. 4892 of 2023 of the learned Single Judge.
-1 of 3-
3) The appellants had filed the said writ application for a direction to
the respondents to grant the appellants' officiating charge in the next
higher position of Chief Engineers. They had contended before the
learned Single Judge that a person junior to them by name Ashok Kumar
has been given the officiating post of the Chief Engineer, but they have
been left out. They have contended that since there are vacant posts in
the cadre of Chief Engineer, they should be allowed to work on officiating
basis in the said vacant posts of Chief Engineers.
4) The respondents had contended before the learned Single Judge
that the said Ashok Kumar had been promoted to the post of
Superintending Engineer on 15th July 2022, but the appellants had been
promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on 23.06.2023; that the
tenure of Ashok Kumar was sufficient for consideration of his case for
promotion on officiating basis as Chief Engineer, but since the appellants
did not complete the Kalavadhi for claiming consideration to the posts of
Chief Engineers, they were not considered.
5) The learned Single Judge noted that, in comparison to Ashok
Kumar, the appellants had not completed the required period of Kalavadhi
and that this is apparent from the order granted to Ashok Kumar to
officiate in the position of Chief Engineer, which has been perused by the
learned Single Judge.
6) The learned Single Judge also held that, therefore, the case of the
appellants cannot be compared with that of Ashok Kumar and they cannot
claim any parity.
7) Challenging the same, this appeal is preferred.
-2 of 3-
8) Counsel for the appellants reiterated the contentions raised before
the learned Single Judge and contended that the learned Single Judge
erred in not granting relief to the appellants.
9) The counsel for the respondents refuted the said contentions and
supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
10) We have noted the contentions of both sides. The appellants, in
effect, seek promotion on officiating basis to the posts of Chief Engineers
from the posts of Superintending Engineers which posts are currently
being held by the appellants.
11) It is settled law that no person has a right to seek promotion on
officiating basis, and that the officiating appointment in a higher post is
normally done on a short term basis pending regular promotions to be
effected to the higher posts. The counsel for the appellants is unable to
point out any provision of law entitling the appellants as of right to be
given officiating charge of the higher post. The counsel for the
respondents submits that when regular promotions are made as per the
applicable promotion rules, the case of the appellants will also be
considered in accordance with law.
12) In view of the above reasons, we find no error in the judgment of
the learned Single Judge warranting interference by this Court in exercise
of Letters Patent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
N.A.F.R.
Manoj/VK
-3 of 3-
