Disposed

Sanjay Chandra Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC24 Apr 2024WPC/2362/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sub-Inspector, an ST candidate, was not promoted to Inspector as his case remained pending before the Departmental Promotion Committee due to non-availability of his annual confidential report, though juniors were promoted in November 2020. The court directed respondent no.2 to prepare the up-to-date ACR and place the petitioner's case before the next DPC within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to make available the petitioner's up-to-date ACR and place his case before the next DPC with all documents, within six months.

Sanjay Chandra Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 2362 of 2023

¶3

Sanjay Chandra Oraon aged about 40 years, son of Birchandra Oraon, resident of Purio, P.O. & P.S. Bero, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand

¶7

Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Karmik), Police Headquarters, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶8

… … Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

05 /24.04.2024 The learned counsels 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 persons junior to the petitioner have been granted promotion to the said post of Inspector and 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 particularly respondent no.2 to send to this Hon'ble Court all records appertaining to the letter no. 2017, dated 24.06.2020, wherein the list of candidates who were found unfit or against whom proceedings were pending, have also been issued wherein the name of the petitioner appeared and in the remark column it has been categorically stated as recommended, yet the name of the petitioner is still to be notified for being promoted to the post of Inspector.

¶17

III. Further, a writ of mandamus be issued upon the respondents particularly respondent no.2 to send to this this Hon'ble High Court the Memo No. 89 dated 27.01.2023 wherein the name of the petitioner appeared in the column showing pending.

¶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 i.e. 20th November, 2020.

¶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 promoted to the post

¶20

of Inspector on and from 20.11.2020 date on which his juniors and counter-part have been promoted, his juniors have been promoted to the post of Inspector.

¶21

AND/OR

¶22

Any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for which the petitioner is very much entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

¶23

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and the case of promotion of the petitioner was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee but has remained pending on account of want of up-to-date annual confidential report. The learned counsel submits that it is for the respondents to ensure that the annual confidential report of each and every candidate is placed and the petitioner cannot suffer on account of non-action on the part of the respondents. The learned counsel has also submitted that many juniors to the petitioner have been promoted but the petitioner has been deprived of promotion and the action of the respondents is ex facie arbitrary.

¶24

4. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the case of promotion of the petitioner can be placed in the next departmental promotion committee and has no answer to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not clear from the counter affidavit as to why the annual confidential report of the petitioner has been kept pending.

¶25

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that it is for the respondent-authorities to ensure that up-to-date ACRs are prepared and placed at the time of consideration of promotion. It appears that the petitioner has been deprived of promotion only for want of annual confidential report, in which the petitioner has no role to play.

¶26

6. Accordingly, the respondent no. 2 is directed to take appropriate steps so that up-to-date annual confidential report of the petitioner is made available prior to the next date of Departmental Promotion Committee meeting and the case of the petitioner be placed

¶27

¶28

on the next date of Departmental Promotion Committee meeting with all the required documents for consideration of this case.

¶29

7. The needful be done by the respondents not later than 6 months from today.

¶30

8. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶31

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶32

Saurav

¶33

Sanjay Chandra Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Chandra Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

Mukesh Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagdish Singh Vs the M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited