Dismissed

Sewa Lal v. the Khadi and Village Industries Commission through Its Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Mar 2024WPC/742/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging denial of promotion to Director on ground of adverse annual confidential report entries for three years; petitioner also challenged DPC decision finding him unfit for lacking 'Very Good' benchmark. Court held no illegality, promotion not a right but consideration is, and dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sewa Lal Vs the Khadi and Village Industries… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S). No. 742 of 2014

Sewa Lal

………. Petitioner

Versus

1.The Khadi and Village Industries Commission having its office at 3 Irla Road, Vile Parley, West Mumbai through its Chief Executive Officer 2.The Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, 33 Chitranjan Avenue, Kolkata

¶8

3.The Director (Administration), Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Irla Road Vile Parley, West Mumbai-56

¶9

4.Union of India through Secretary, Micro Small & Medium Enterprises, Udyog Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi

¶10

………. Respondents .

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK

¶13

----------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate

¶14

¶15

04/ 05.03.2024 Petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.03.2012 by which promotion to the post of Director was turned down on the ground of adverse entries made in annual confidential report.

¶16

2. According to the Petitioner, Petitioner joined to the post of Auditor-I on 01.09.1982 and thereafter was given regular promotion to the post of Accounts Officer in the year 1991. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Deputy director vide order dated 06.09.2005 and was posted in the office of the State Office, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh. One fine day, a letter was served upon the petitioner under the pen and signature of Director (Admin.), wherefrom the petitioner came to know that adverse entry has been made in the confidential report for the year 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 i.e., Good and average, and the same was communicated to him. Thereafter, the petitioner has been deprived from the benefit of promotion to the post of Director on the ground of the adverse entries made in the confidential report for the three consecutive years i.e. 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has represented before the authorities for expunging the adverse remarks made in the confidential report for the aforesaid years but the same was rejected without considering the note of consideration and comment of the Reporting Officers was also not recorded. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of the Court. During the

¶17

-2-

¶18

pendency of the instant writ petition, it has been brought to the knowledge of this Court by way of filing counter-affidavit that Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 07.08.2019 and petitioner’s case was considered but he was not found fit for promotion because of non-fulfilment of requisite bench mark of “Very Good” in the annual confidential report for preceding five years. Thereafter, petitioner filed an interlocutory application for the amendment in the writ petition by challenging the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee which was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 06.08.2014.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was entitled for promotion to the post of Director as he fulfills the requisite qualification. Learned counsel further submits that all along the service career he maintained the good reputation and his service records were clear for reasons for consideration of his case for the post of Director. It has been further argued that all of a sudden, adverse entries were made against him and he was down-graded. Learned counsel submits that those adverse entries were made by the counterparts who were also holding the same or equivalent post but were made the incharge Director. Learned counsel further submits that making adverse entries in the annual confidential report of the petitioner by the in-charge Director who was holding equivalent post to that of the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that it clearly shows that out of animosity, the said adverse entries were made. Learned counsel further submits that even the adverse entries were not communicated to him which is requirement of law. It has further been argued these adverse entries ought not to have been considered by the respondents and if other than the adverse entries if something was wrong against the petitioner the case for promotion of petitioner would have been turned down.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since petitioner was not found fit for promotion due to his regression as per adverse entries, rightly his case was turned down. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was duly informed about the adverse entries and as such the plea taken by the petitioner’s counsel is not at all acceptable. Learned counsel submits that Director in-charge was fully empowered to make adverse entries against the petitioner as the power was delegated to him while holding the post of in-charge Director and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order and the same is fully

¶21

-3-

¶22

justified.

¶23

5. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. Petitioner has already superannuated in the year 2015. Promotion is not a right of the employees, the right is regarding consideration of their case for promotion only. Petitioner’s case was duly considered but owing to adverse entries in the annual confidential report he was not granted promotion to the post of Director. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that adverse entries were not duly informed is not acceptable to this Court on the ground that he himself has filed this writ petition after he came to know about the adverse entries in his confidential reports, meaning thereby he was very much aware of the adverse entries. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶24

Rohit-

Sewa Lal v. the Khadi and Village Industries Commission through Its Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sewa Lal v. the Khadi and Village Industries Commission through Its Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Singh Vs The General Manager Kusunda Area Of Gondudih Colliery Of Ms B C C L

Dhirendra Kumar Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukteshwar Datta Singh Vs Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

MD Ismail Ashrafi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhuwan Bhaskar Vs Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences through Its Director

Jagannath Tripathy Vs Health