Dismissed¶22

Nimchandra Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Service law – Promotion

Jharkhand HC25 Jan 2024WPC/789/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Promotion in Grade-III(3) denied; writ petition dismissed; gradation list placed petitioner at Sl. No. 43 against Raghunath Mandal at Sl. No. 37; promotion granted against 20% vacant seats; liberty to challenge gradation list on seniority claim; Jharkhand school education department; W.P.(S) No. 789 of 2022; decided 25.01.2024 by Rajesh Shankar, J.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the petitioner was held at liberty to take appropriate recourse against the concerned gradation list as permissible under law if he claims seniority over Raghunath Mundal or any other person, and I.A. No. 123/2024 stood disposed of. ¶22

Nimchandra Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims that persons junior to him were granted promotion in Grade-III(3) after he completed 18 years of service in Grade-II(2), is entitled to a direction upon respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to consider and grant him promotion in Grade-III(3) from that date.

¶15

Court's answer

On the respondents' stand in the counter affidavit, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 43 in the gradation list against Raghunath Mandal at Sl. No. 37, and promotion was granted against 20% of the vacant seats in which the petitioner's turn did not come; the petitioner's claim that juniors were promoted was thus not the correct fact, and the Court declined to entertain the prayer and dismissed the writ petition.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

I.A. No. 123/2024 also stands disposed of consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition.

¶24

Key takeaways

If the petitioner claims seniority over Raghunath Mundal or any other person, he is at liberty to take appropriate recourse against the concerned gradation list as permissible under law.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law – Promotion – Writ petition under W.P.(S) seeking direction to respondents to consider and grant promotion in Grade-III(3) on the ground that juniors were promoted, from the date of completion of 18 years of service in Grade-II(2) – Respondents' counter affidavit showed that per the gradation list the petitioner was at Sl. No. 43 whereas Raghunath Mandal was at Sl. No. 37, and promotion was granted against 20% of vacant seats in which the petitioner's turn did not come – Contention that the gradation list was erroneous noted but the Court, finding the petitioner's claim of juniors being promoted incorrect on the respondents' stand, declined to entertain the prayer and dismissed the writ petition – Liberty reserved to challenge the gradation list if seniority is claimed over Raghunath Mundal or others – I.A. No. 123/2024 disposed of (Rajesh Shankar, J.).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 789 of 2022

¶3

Nimchandra Mandal ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶7

The Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka

¶9

The District Education Establishment Committee, through the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka ….. Respondents -----

¶10

CORAM

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arbind Kumar For the Respondents: Mr. Ashish Kumar, A.C to S.C (L&C)-II

¶14

¶15

06/25.01.2024 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to consider the petitioner’s claim for promotion in GradeIII(3) which has been granted to his juniors and thereafter to grant promotion to him in the said grade from the date he completed 18 years of service in Grade-II(2).

¶16

Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned A.C to S.C (L&C)-II appearing on behalf of the respondents, refers to paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, which reads as under:

¶17

‘’9. That it is stated that gradation list has been prepared and as per the above rules, the promotion has been granted according to the 20% of vacant seat. This petitioner was at the gradation serial number 43 whereas Raghunath Mandal was at serial No. 37 and according to 20% vacant seat this petitioner was not under the said vacant seat and as such he was not granted promotion and accordingly the case and claim of the petitioner is not maintainable.’’

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that as per the gradation list, the petitioner is placed at Sl. No. 43 whereas Raghunath Mandal is placed at Sl. No. 37. Moreover,

¶19

promotion has been granted against 20% of the vacant seats in which the petitioner’s turn did not come.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, submits that the gradation list (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) is erroneous and in fact, the petitioner should have been placed above Raghunath Mandal.

¶21

Be that as it may.

¶22

Since the present writ petition is confined to the extent of directing the concerned respondents to promote the petitioner in Grade-III(3) claiming that the persons juniors to him have been granted promotion in the said grade, which as per the aforesaid stand of the respondents is not the correct fact, this Court is not inclined to entertain the said prayer of the petitioner. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

It is however observed that if the petitioner claims seniority over Raghunath Mundal or any other person, he is at liberty to take appropriate recourse against the concerned gradation list as permissible under law.

¶24

Consequently, I.A. No. 123/2024 also stands disposed of.

¶25

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶26

Satish/-

Nimchandra Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nimchandra Mandal 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

Bablu Kumbhakar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiveshwar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Principal Secretary Deptt of Higher Technical Education and Skill

Mukul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Janeshwar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kshama Rani Vs State Bank of India through Its Managing Director

Kandla Projects Private Limited through Its Director Sanjay Goyal Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Mr P M Prasad