Mukesh Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 2195 of 2023

Mukesh Choudhary, aged about 45 years, son of Jagdish Choudhary, resident of Rajapur gate No. 27, Patna, P.O G.P.O, P.S. Patna, Dist: Patna (Bihar) presently posted as officer incharge, Bariatu, P.O. & P.S.: Bariatu, Dist: Ranchi … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karmik), Police Headquarter, P.O & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi

¶7

… … Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC-VI : Mr. Piyush Anand, AC to SC-VI

¶12

¶13

05 /24.04.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶14

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

¶15

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) particularly writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to send to this Hon'ble Court all records appertaining to the issuance of panel of the candidates for being promoted to the post of Inspector from the Sub-Inspector and although the name of the petitioner appears at SL. No. 211, and in the merit list at SL. No. 703, yet persons junior to the petitioner in serial number as well as in the merit list, have been granted promotion to the said post of inspector, and inspite of being fit in all respects for the post of Inspector, the same has been denied to the petitioner.

¶16

(ii) A further writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued upon the respondents for sending to this Hon'ble Court all records appertaining to the Memo No. 475 dated 2.6.2020 (Annexure 2) wherein the list of those candidates who were found unfit or against whom proceedings were pending, have also been issued but the name of the petitioner does not appear in the remark column.

¶17

iii. Further a writ of mandamus to be issued upon the respondents particularly respondent no. 2 to send to this Hon'ble Court the Memo No. 89 dated 27.1.2023 wherein the name of the petitioner does not appear.

¶18

(iv) Further, a prayer is being made before this Hon'ble court for a direction upon the respondents particularly respondent no. 2 to immediately and forthwith consider the case of the petitioner to be promoted to the post of Inspector and promote him to the post of Inspector on and from the date on which, his juniors have been promoted to the said post of inspector from the year 2020, and

¶19

(v) Further, a humble prayer is being made before this Hon'ble Court to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner in view of the fact that in all respects the petitioner is entitled to be

¶20

1

¶21

promoted to the post of Inspector on and from 2020, his juniors have been promoted to the post of Inspector.”

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the juniors to the petitioner have already been granted promotion but the petitioner has been left out. He submits that earlier one departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner which has ultimately resulted in passing of an order of censure only. The learned counsel submits that now there is no impediment in taking up the matter of the petitioner for the purposes of promotion.

¶23

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the writ petition can be disposed of in the light of Annexure- F to the counteraffidavit. He submits that in the counter-affidavit, it has been mentioned that as on date, against sanctioned strength of 610 police inspector, at present 513 inspectors are working and discharging their duties. The police headquarter has written letter dated 12.12.2023 to the Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand and sought appropriate guidelines for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police which is still awaited and once the guidelines are received, appropriate decision will be taken.

¶24

5. The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that Police Headquarter, Jharkhand vide letter dated 12.12.2023 sought necessary guidelines for grant of promotion in those cases which were kept in the category ‘pending’ in the meeting dated 27/28.05.2020 by the Director General, Selection Board and once the guidelines are received the case of the petitioner can be taken up for promotion.

¶25

6. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure- F to the counter-affidavit and has submitted that in the list there are altogether 13 such candidates whose matter was kept pending, and the name of the petitioner appears at sl. No. 9. He submits that the person at sl. No. 10 in the said list has already been granted promotion.

¶26

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the respondents have themselves stated that now the matter

¶27

2

¶28

regarding promotion of the petitioner can be considered, but they are awaiting certain guidelines pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 12.12.2023. It appears that much time has elapsed since the issuance of the letter dated 12.12.2023, but still the case of promotion of the petitioner has not been considered and amongst the persons whose name appeared in the letter dated 12.12.2023, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that case of one other person namely ‘Sunil Kumar Kushwaha’ has been taken up and he has been granted promotion.

¶29

8. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the matter regarding promotion of the petitioner cannot be deferred for an indefinite period of time for want of necessary guidelines. The respondents are directed to expedite the matter and take appropriate decision in connection with the claim of promotion of the petitioner as early as possible but not later than six months from the date of communication of this order.

¶30

9. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶32

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶33

Pankaj

¶34

3

Mukesh Choudhary v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Choudhary v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Kalyani Devi Vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited through the Chairman Cum Managing Director

Om Lal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Chandra Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand

Jagdish Singh Vs the M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited