Dismissed¶31

Ramashankar Chandrakar v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jan 2024WPS/4363/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPS No. 4363 of 2013; Ramashankar Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh; promotion from Assistant Librarian to Librarian; requisite educational qualification; Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990; Schedule III entry IV; Schedule IV Sr. No.4; Chhattisgarh Shaikshanik Seva (Mahavidyalayin Shakha, Rajpatrit) Bharti Niyam, 2019; Rule 22 one time relaxation; order No.2823/F 1-76/38-1/12011 dated 11.8.2011; Annexure-P/1; writ petition dismissed; Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.; 18/01/2024.

What did the court decide?

At the relevant time when the order (Annexure-P/1) was passed on 11.8.2011, the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite educational qualification for promotion to the post of Librarian. ¶28

Ramashankar Chandrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner possessed the requisite educational qualification prescribed under the Rules, 1990 (Schedule III, entry IV) for promotion from the post of Assistant Librarian to the post of Librarian, so as to justify quashing the rejection order of 11.8.2011. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

At the relevant time when the order (Annexure-P/1) was passed on 11.8.2011, the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite educational qualification for promotion to the post of Librarian.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The competent authority rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Librarian.

¶30

Key takeaways

The writ petition, including the prayer for a one-time relaxation under Rule 22 of the Rules, 2019, was dismissed as devoid of any substance.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (WPS No. 4363 of 2013; Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.; decided 18/01/2024). An Assistant Librarian (appointed 12.12.1987) challenged order No.2823/F 1-76/38-1/12011 dated 11.8.2011 (Annexure-P/1) of the Under Secretary, Higher Education Department, which had found him ineligible for promotion to the post of Librarian, and sought direction that his candidature for promotion be considered. Promotion is governed by the Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990: Schedule IV (Sr. No.4) requires possession of the qualification prescribed for Librarian under Schedule III (entry IV), i.e., a Post Graduate Degree in Library Science with at least 55% marks and not less than 50% at the degree level. The petitioner held 56.37% in his Postgraduate degree, 52.35% in Master of Library & Information Science and 46.82% in Bachelor of Library Science — below the prescribed norms. Counsel argued that under the Chhattisgarh Shaikshanik Seva (Mahavidyalayin Shakha, Rajpatrit) Bharti Niyam, 2019 (under which no post of Assistant Librarian exists) a one-time relaxation is available under Rule 22 and asked that it be granted. The State contended that even with relaxation the petitioner lacked the requisite marks. Holding: at the relevant time (11.8.2011) the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite educational qualification, and the competent authority rightly rejected his claim; the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of any substance.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 4363 of 2013

¶5

Ramashankar Chandrakar S/o Shri L.P. Chandrakar Aged About 51 Years Posted As Assistant Librarian R/o Kapir Kumar Near Sahu Kirana Store, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur C.G.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur C.G.

¶9

Under Secretary Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur C.G.

¶10

Principal Govt. Agrasen College Bilha (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner : Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

18/01/2024 :

¶16

The petitioner has filed the present petition and prayed for the following

¶17

reliefs:-

¶18

“10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order No.2823/F 1-76/38-1/12011, Raipur, Dated 11.8.2011 passed by respondent Under Secretary (ANNEXURE P/1).

¶19

¶20

10.2. To kindly direct the respondent State to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Librarian.

¶21

10.3. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶22

Facts of the case are that vide order dated 11.8.2011 (Annexure-P/1), the petitioner was not found eligible for promotion as he was not having the requisite educational qualification for the post of Librarian. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Librarian on 12^th December, 1987.

¶23

Admittedly, promotion from the post of Assistant Librarian to the post of Librarian is governed by the Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 (for short ‘the Rules, 1990’). Schedule IV particularly Sr. No.4 thereof deals with the provision for promotion from the post of Assistant Librarian to the post of Librarian, for which the incumbent must have acquired the qualification prescribed for the post of Librarian and the promotion was to be made on the basis of service record also. The qualification for the post of Librarian has been given under Schedule III and as per entry IV, the incumbent must be having a Post Graduate Degree in Library Science with at least 55% marks and at the Degree level, the percentage of marks should not be less than 50 or at least 55% marks in MA/Mcom/Msc and for Graduate degree in Library Science, percentage of total marks obtained should be less than 50. The petitioner had secured 56.37% marks in Postgraduate degree, 52.35% marks in

¶24

¶25

Master of Library & Information Science and 46.82% marks in Bachelor of Library Science, which is below the norms of 50% marks as prescribed in the Schedule.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that with the efflux of time, the new Rules of 2019 came into force being the Chhattisgarh Shaikshanik Seva (Mahavidyalayin Shakha, Rajpatrit) Bharti Niyam, 2019. He would further submit that under the said Rules, for the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC category, relaxation of 5% marks at the graduation and post-graduation level was prescribed for the post of Librarian. As the petitioner was not given promotion and under the new Rules, no post of Assistant Librarian exist, therefore, the State may be directed to grant one time relaxation to the petitioner, which is provided under Rule 22 of the Rules, 2019.

¶27

Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that even after granting such relaxation, the petitioner may not be granted any promotion because he has not scored the requisite marks. He would submit that the power of relaxation is vested with the employer State and there is no merit in the petition.

¶28

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after examining the essential qualification for promotion and the fact that at the relevant time when the order (Annexure-P/1) was passed on 11.8.2011, the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite educational qualification, this Court is of the view that the competent authority has

¶29

¶30

rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Librarian.

¶31

Resultantly, the Writ Petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶32

Sd/(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶33

Barve

Ramashankar Chandrakar v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramashankar Chandrakar v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Sao Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Shatruhan Vs Rikhiram

Naveen Tiwari Vs Bank of India

Vinod Kumar Vasudeo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kuldeep Singh @ Rahul Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nazmuddin Siddiqui Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.