Dismissed¶20

Kamshwar Singh v. Union of India And Ors.

Jharkhand HC23 Jan 2024WPC/6979/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court dismisses writ petition of Kameshwar Singh seeking quashing of CIC order dated 29.09.2011 refusing furnishing of departmental examination answer-sheet and seeking promotion to Postman post in regular pay scale; CAT dismissal unchallenged; prior proceedings CWJC No.773 of 2000, LPA dismissed, W.P.(S) No.5087 of 2002; decided 23.01.2024.

What did the court decide?

Having considered the submissions, it is apparent that the petitioner failed in the departmental examination and consequently was denied promotion; his petition before the CAT was rejected and that order has not been challenged; therefore the Court finds no merit in the writ petition, which stands dismissed. ¶20

Kamshwar Singh Vs Union of India And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W. P. [C] No. 6979 of 2011

¶4

Kameshwar Singh .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus

¶5

1.The Union of India through Chief Post Master General, Ranchi Doranda, Ranchi.

¶6

2.Sri N. Sarkar, Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Singhbhum Division, Jamshedpur.

¶7

3.Central Information Commissioners, through Chief Information Commissioner, New Delhi. .. ... ...Respondent(s)

¶8

.. ... ...Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bijay Kr. Pandey, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey & Ms. Anjana Kumari, Adv. For the UOI : Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC

¶11

05/ 23.01.2024 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission in File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/000059 and File No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000344 [Kameshwar Singh vs. Department of Post, Jamshedpur] by which the answer-sheet of departmental examination was not furnished to the petitioner and for further prayer to promote the petitioner to the Post of Postman in regular Pay Scale.

¶13

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he appeared in the Departmental examination for promotion, the result of which was declared on 09.12.1999 and he filed an application for re-evaluation of answer sheet on 15.01.2000, but neither the re-evaluation was done nor the answer-sheet was furnished to the petitioner.

¶14

3. Petitioner had earlier moved this Court vide CWJC No.773 of 2000 which was disposed of, with observation that petitioner had continuously worked for the last 24 years on daily wages and, therefore, the respondent(s) to take lenient view and regularise the petitioner on the post of Postman.

¶15

4. The L.P.A. preferred against the judgment was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, as such, it attained finality. Despite the observation of this Court, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Sr. Superintendent (Annexure-5). Thereafter petitioner preferred another Writ Petition being W.P. (S) No.5087 of 2002 which was disposed of with liberty to raise the matter before the appropriate forum.

¶16

5. Pursuant to the order, the petitioner moved Central Administrative Tribunal and the same was dismissed at the stage of admission itself on the ground of the Petitioner being unsuccessful in the departmental examination and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been promoted sans the statutory rule for promotion. Aggrieved by the said order, the instant Writ Petition has been preferred.

¶17

¶18

6. Learned CGC for the UOI submits that re-evaluation and re-totalling was also conducted, but no infirmity was found in the evaluation of marks obtained by the petitioner.

¶19

7. It is further submitted that pursuant to the direction passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.5087 of 2002, petitioner moved before the CAT wherein his application /petition was dismissed, but the said order has not been challenged.

¶20

8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, it is apparent that Petitioner failed in the departmental examination and consequently was denied promotion. Petition before CAT has been rejected, and the said order has not been challenged, consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition which accordingly stands dismissed.

¶21

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶22

Sandeep/

¶23

Uploaded.

Kamshwar Singh v. Union of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamshwar Singh v. Union of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ruplal Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sona Devi Alias Piyaso Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Nayak Vs State of Jharkhand

Edupuganti Vara Prasad Choudhary Vs Bokaro Steel Limited And Ors.

Rajesh Sahu And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Singhania Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.