Amit Kumar Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 2149 of 2023

Puja Tiwari, aged about 30 years, wife of Late Amit Kumar Tiwary, resident of Village- Tolra, P.O. Rehla, P.S.- Rehla, Tolra, DistrictPalamu … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Director General of Inspector, Karmik, having its office at Police Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. Jagarnnathpur, Dist: Ranchi … … Respondents

¶7

¶8

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG ---

¶10

04 /24.04.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶11

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶12

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent no.2 to immediately and forthwith send to this Hon'ble Court all records appertaining to panel, which was prepared for promotion to the post of Inspector from Sub- Inspector by the Departmental Promotion Committee but although juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to the said post but the case of the petitioner although being the senior to other has been deprived from being promoted to the post of Inspector.

¶13

ii . Further, a humble prayer is being made before this Hon'ble Court for a direction upon the respondent to immediately and forthwith grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Inspector on and from the date on which juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to the said post as he has fulfilled all requisite qualifications required for the said post.

¶14

iii. Further a humble prayer is being made before this Hon'ble Court for grant of all consequential benefits to the petitioner to which he may be entitled from the date of the promotion to the post of Inspector for which he has already fulfilled all requisite qualification and his name was also appeared at Sl. No. 153 of Panel prepared by the respondent authorities.”

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the original writ petitioner namely, Amit Kumar Tiwary expired while in service and therefore, his wife is now the petitioner.

¶16

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is an admitted fact from the counter-affidavit that junior to the original

¶17

1

¶18

petitioner has been promoted although in the counter-affidavit the name of only one person has been mentioned. He submits that in the rejoinder he has given the list of as many as 28 persons, who are all junior to the original petitioner and have been promoted. He has further submitted that there is a punishment of censure, but the same will not come in the way of the promotion of the original petitioner.

¶19

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is seeking a mandamus. The case of the original petitioner for promotion can be placed in the next departmental promotion committee meeting and every aspect of the matter will be considered as per the applicable rules, guidelines, etc. including the claim of original writ petitioner that his juniors have been promoted. She submits that juniors to the original petitioner were promoted as they were eligible for promotion.

¶20

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner (being the legal representative of the original writ petitioner) is seeking a mandamus by stating that juniors to the original petitioner have been promoted and the original petitioner has been left out. In the counter-affidavit, it is an admitted fact that one of the juniors to the original petitioner namely Sangeeta at sl. No. 647 has been promoted. But, in the rejoinder the petitioner has given a list of persons stating that as many as 28 persons junior to the original petitioner have been promoted.

¶21

7. Further, considering the submissions of the respondents, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the present writ petition pending as the claim of promotion of the original petitioner can be placed before the next meeting of the departmental promotion committee.

¶22

8. The respondent no. 2 is directed to do the needful so that the claim of promotion of the original petitioner be placed in the meeting of the selection board of the departmental promotion committee whenever it is held. The departmental promotion committee shall consider the claim of the original petitioner in accordance with law.

¶23

2

¶24

9. The decision be forwarded to the petitioner through speed post.

¶25

10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not

¶27