Dismissed

Kashi Vishwanath Rao Jhadhav v. State

Chhattisgarh HC8 Apr 2016WPS/3735/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's petition seeking posting on a technical post as Lab Technician. The court held he lacked requisite qualifications, Article 14 does not guarantee negative equality, and his claim was barred as he availed promotion benefits while the petition was pending for 15 years.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for direction to post the petitioner as Lab Technician was dismissed.

Kashi Vishwanath Rao Jhadhav Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

f
/

¶2

BEFORE THE STATE ADMIMSTRATIVE TRIBUNALS, BENCH AT RAIPUR (c.G.) £03573) Q9.* v7“3.x kw“) 0.A.No.: 2001

¶3

0.A.No.:

¶4

/ 2001

¶5

APPLICANT u Kashi Vishwanath Rao Jadhav son of Laxman Rao Jadhav, aged 51 years, R/o. Byron Bazar, Raipur Store Keeper, Govt.Engg.College, Raipur.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RESPONDANI'S‘

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Janshakti Sixhka Niyojan Vibhag D.K.Bhawan, Raipur.

¶9

Director, Technical Education, Byron Bazar, Raipur.

¶10

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRMBUNALS ACT.

¶11

HIGH COUBT OF CHljATTI§GARH, BILASEUR

¶12

.NAFR
k

¶13

WPS No. 3735 of 2005

¶14

~ Kashi Vishwanath Rao Jhadhav

¶15

---- Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

o State of Chhattisgarh & Another

¶18

---- Respondent

¶19

For Petitioner

¶20

For Petitioner Shri Pawan Kesharwani Advocate . For Respondent/State Shrl P K Bhadun Govt Advocate

¶21

Hon'ble Shrl Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶22

_Order On Board

¶23

08/04/2Q1 6

¶24

Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to post him on the technical post of Lab Technician w.e.f. 19-1 1-1984.

¶25

Material available in the record would indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Lab Assistant in the year 1975 in a private Polytechnic College. He was confirmed on the post on 1-4—1977. The post of Lab Assistant was, later on, re—designated as' Lab Technician for which the Principal of the Polytechnic College,‘ Rudri, Dhamtari, has issued a

¶26

communication on 6-8-1989. The college was subsequentlyX9 taken over by the Government.

¶27

On 5—1 1-1992 the Directorate of Technical Education passed an order to the effect that all the employees working in the private Polytechnic Colleges taken over by the Government who are not having the requisite qualification^forthe post^onwhich they are working are redeployed to work on a different post as per^the list. Since the petitioner was not having the requisite qualification^{toworkasLabTechnicianhe} was posted as Lower Division Clerk ('LDC' in short).

¶28

By another communication dated 26-7-1995 exemption was granted to some candidates and were continued on technical post^{eventhoughtheywerenothaving} the requisite qualification at the time of taking over of the private Polytechnic Colleges by the Government. The petitioner^has, thus, rested his claim on violation of the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the previous order of the Principal whereby he was designated as Lab Technician.

¶29

This)petition was initially filed as OA No.468/2001 before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal. It has remained pending for about 15 years.

¶30

It is the stand of the State Government that during all thisperiod the petitioner has aiready availed the benefit of kramonnati/ promotion and has, thus, acquiesced with his post/designation as LDC. Moreover, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner^was not having requisite qualification for the post of Lab Technician.

¶31

It is the settied proposition of iaw that a person cannot claim negative equality. Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner (See: Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officeri).

¶32

For the above-stated reasons, particularly for availing the benefit of kramonnati/promotion during pendency of this writ petition, the prayer for posting the petitioner on technical side as Lab Technician does not survive.

¶33

In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No

¶34

order as to costs.

¶35

r SdlJudge

¶36

Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶37

Gowri

¶38

1 (2013)^14scc81

Kashi Vishwanath Rao Jhadhav v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashi Vishwanath Rao Jhadhav v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harihar Prasad Singh Vs K. Marugan

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Vs Chaituram Yadav And Anr.

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Vs Kartikram And Anr.

Awadh Bihari Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Government of M.P. Now C.G. and Anr. Vs Smt. Kachra Bai

Madan Singh Nag Vs State