This writ petition seeking promotion w.e.f. 07.07.2008 was dismissed as it lacked merit. The court noted the petitioner failed to rebut the respondent's clear submission that he lacked the requisite 12th Class qualification for the post of Revenue Sub Inspector.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(S) No. 1256 of 2009
Rajaram Thawait S/o late Shri Narayan Prasad Thawait aged about 55 years, R/o Rangolipara, Raigarh, Tahsil and DistrictRaigarh, (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Manish Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondent no. 1 : Shri Garry Mukhopadhyay, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms. Puspa Dwivedi, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board
09/10/2015
The petitioner through the present writ petition has sought for a relief for consideration of his promotion w.e.f. 07.07.2008 i.e. the date on which respondents 4 & 5 were promoted to the post of Revenue Sub Inspector from the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector.
2. Notices in this case were issued to the respondents as early as in March, 2009 and respondent no.2, the contesting respondent filed reply in April, 2009 categorically coming up with the stand that the petitioner does not have the minimum requisite qualification i.e. 12th Class passed on account of which the case of the petitioner was not considered for the post of Revenue Sub Inspector.
3. So far as respondents 4 & 5 are concerned, again respondent no.2 in their reply have specifically mentioned that as respondents 4 & 5 were 12th class passed and fulfilled the minimum eligibility criteria, they were promoted to the said post. There is no rejoinder filed by the petitioner rebutting the submission made by respondent no.2, the
2
contesting party in their reply. In the entire pleading of the petition, the petitioner has not disclosed anything in respect of the minimum education qualification for the post of Revenue Sub Inspector.
4. Considering the total facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that there is a specific submission made by respondent no.2 that the petitioner does not have minimum education qualification for the post he is claiming promotion and to this fact there also being no rebuttal by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition any further.
5. Thus, the present writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Bhola
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking promotion deserves consideration when the petitioner failed to rebut the respondent's submission regarding minimum educational qualification.
Rajaram Thawait
State of Chhattisgarh
Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Raigarh
Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Nigam, Raigarh
Sonwa Das
Makardhwaj Malakar
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
