Dismissed

Manoj Tamboli And Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Oct 2013WPS/5545/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed writ petitions challenging the cancellation of promotion orders. The court held that petitioners were ineligible as they had not completed five years of regular service on the feeder post, as required under relevant service rules.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed. The impugned order cancelling the promotion is upheld.

Manoj Tamboli And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

Q‘(

¶2

$§ngie @mch

¶3

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT^{OFCHHA'I'I‘ISGARH} AT BILASPUR

W.P.(S) No.

g5^L/S/ /2o12

/ PETITIONERS 1]

Manoj Tamboli, S/o. Sukdev Tamboli, aged about 38 years,^R/o. Qtr. No. 1-8, I,T.I. Colony, Korba, Police Station Ramput I.T.I., Post Office I.T.I. Rampur,^{DistrictKorba,} Chhattisgarh

¶8

Vishnu Prasad^Dewangan S/o. Late Bharat Lal Dewangan,^AgedAbout 38^Years, Qtr.^{No.L11,I.T.I.Colony,} Korba, Police Station^{RamputI.T.I.,} Post Office I.T.I. Rampur, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

¶10

Roshan Banjaray, S/o. Ghashi ram Banjaray, Aged about 40^Years; Qtr. No. 1—12, I.T.I. Colony,^Korba,Police Station Ramput I.T.I., Post Office I.T.I. Rampur, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

RESPONDENTS

¶13

State of Chhattisgarh, through: Principal Secretary, Department of Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe Development, D.KIS. Bhawan, Raipur, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, Head Post Office, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

Commissioner, Department of Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, Head Post Office, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶15

Collector (Tribal Development), Korba, Police Station^{andPostOffice} Rampur I.T.I., Korba,^{DistrictKorba,} Chhattisgarh

¶16

Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Korba, Police Station and Post Office Rampur I.T.I., Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶17

226^{OF THE} UNDER^ARTICLE WRIT^PETITION OF^INDIA CONSTITUTION

¶18

¶19

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶20

WP(S) No.5545 of 2012

¶21

PETlTiONERS

¶22

Manoj Tamboli & others

¶23

-Versus—

¶24

RESPONDENTS: State of Chhat‘tisgarh & others

¶25

AND

¶26

WP(S) No,5343 of 2012

PETITIONER

Ganga Prasad Verma

-Versus—

RESPONDENTS: State of Chhattisgarh & others

¶31

Present

¶32

¶33

Shri Manoj Paranjpe with Shri Vickram Dixit, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Rakesh Jha, Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶34

Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

(440-2013)

¶37

The petitioners were promoted on the post of reguiar Peon by order dated 16.1.2012. On receiving some complaints, the Coliector, Tribal Development, Korba cancetled the order of promotion on 27.2.2012. The petitioners preferred^{WP(S)Nos.1196,1197,} 1198, 1201 and 1202 of 2012 challenging the said order of cancellation of promotion. This Court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The impugned order (Annexure-PM) has now been passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other similarly placed^candidates. lt is mentioned in the impugned order that for promotion to the post of Peon, the concerned employee is required to have experience of 5 years regular service and since the petitioners have not completed 5 years^{serviceonthefeeder} post, it has been found that their promotion order was not in accordance with law because the petitioners are not eligible for consideration as they did not possess the requisite length of service on the feeder post.

¶38

. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents did not prepare any gradation list of the post of Class—IV employees, therefore,

¶39

¶40

¶41

it was for the respondents to consider the record and pass appropriate order and once the order of promotion was issued, it could not have been cancelled by the respondents for no fault of the petitioners.

¶42

. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned order passed by the Collector.

¶43

. There is no dispute that under the relevant service rules 5 years service is required on the feeder post for consideration of promotion on the post of Peon. The petitioners have not placed on record any documents by which it can be demonstrated that the petitioners had in fact been working for a period^of5 years^{ormoreonthefeedercadre.} Therefore, the reason for which their promotion order has been cancelled holds good and thus, the petitioners^{werenoteligiblefor} promotion^{whentheorderof} promotion^was issued on 1&12012.

¶44

. For the foregoing, this Court does not find any substance in these writ

¶45

petitions,^{whichfailandareherebydismissed.}

¶46

W»

¶47

¶48

Barve

Manoj Tamboli And Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Tamboli And Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baijnath Shrivas Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Karan Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Ayodhya Bai Vs the Executive Dir.Fin.C.G.Po.Ho.and Ors.

C.G.Karmchari Mazdoor Ekta Union Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ganga Prasad Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shivram Kashyap Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.