A. B. Thomas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Technical Education Man Power Employment Science And Technology Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002

¶11

3 - Joint Director (Training) At Regional Office I.T.I. New Shanti Nagar, P.O. Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Smt. Ambika Badhwa Assistant Grade - I Through Joint Director Training At Regional Office Industrial Training Institute New Shanti Nagar, P.O. Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Vidya Jha Assistant Grade - I Through Joint Director Training At Regional Office Industrial Training Institute New Shanti Nagar, P.O. Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

6 - Vishnu Prasad Agnihotri Assistant Grade - I Through Joint Director Training At Regional Office Industrial Traning Institute New Shanti Nagar, P.O. Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner :- Mr.	Tanmay Thomas, Advocate
For State :- Mr.	Pankaj Singh , Panel Lawyer
For Respondent
Nos.4 to 6 :- Mr.	Vikas Patel, Advocate on behalf of
Mr.	Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, Advocate

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶19

23.10.2024

¶20

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Grade – I and Assistant Grade – II.

¶21

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been granted promotion till date on the pretext that he has not passed Hindi Typing Examination. Earlier, he was also not receiving the annual increments on the same pretext, against which he filed a writ petition bearing No.4025/2003 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P/3) held that the Director was not justified in imposing such a condition while appointing the petitioner and directed the respondents therein to release the annual increments to the petitioner from the date it became due and payable under the order of appointment dated 26.09.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations before the Director, Industrial Training Institute, Raipur, which was forwarded by the Industrial Training Centre, Maro, Durg to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion but the same has not been done and the petitioner has not been granted promotion to the post of Assistant Grade – I

¶22

3 / 4

¶23

or to the post of Assistant Grade – II, though his juniors have been promoted to the post of Assistant Grade – II & and then to the post of Assistant Grade - I vide orders dated 30.03.2005 (Annexure P/5) and 26.09.2012 (Annexure P/6), and, therefore, the competent/respondent authority may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the said posts in view of order of this Court dated 21.11.2012 passed in WPS No.4025/2003.

¶24

3. Learned State Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner would be decided strictly in accordance with law.

¶25

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the material available on records with utmost circumspection.

¶26

5. In the case at hand, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk by virtue of being Sports person of excellence. However, the petitioner has not been granted promotion for not passing the Hindi Typing Examination. Earlier, when the petitioner approached this Court by filing WPS No.4025/2003, this Court vide order dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P/3) found him entitled for grant of annual increments and held that

¶27

4 / 4

¶28

the Director, while appointing the petitioner was not justified in imposing such a condition of passing the typing examination and had directed the respondents to release the annual increments in favour of the petitioner.

¶29

6. In that view of the matter, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in view of order dated 21.11.2012 of this Court for his promotion on the post of Assistant Grade – I and Assistant Grade – II, in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further, the petitioner is also at liberty to file additional representation along with relevant documents within four weeks from today before the respondent/competent authority for redressal of his grievance.

¶30

7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands finally disposed of . No cost(s).

¶31

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶32

@d!t!

A. B. Thomas v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. B. Thomas v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kartik Ram Narang Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manharan Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

A. B. Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gaurav Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Rashmi Bantenakhate Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mahavir Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh