Allowed

Manzar Imam v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC3 Jul 2012CWJC/11026/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, a petitioner who sought a promotion as an Assistant filed a writ against the University for not publishing the final gradation list in compliance with earlier directions. The Court issued a mandamus to publish the list within six months.

What did the court decide?

Issued mandamus to the University to publish the gradation list within six months and initiate consequential action for promotion.

Manzar Imam Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.11026 of 2012 (2) dt.03-07-2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11026 of 2012

¶4

======================================================

¶5

Manzar Imam, son of Late Hasan Imam, resident of Mohalla- Baridargah, Post Biharsharif, Police Station- Biharsharif, District- Nalanda, at present working as Assistant, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara.

¶6

.... .... Petitioner Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar.

¶8

The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶9

The Director, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶10

The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶11

The Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶12

The Vice Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara.

¶13

The Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara.

¶14

.... .... Respondent/s

¶15

====================================================== Appearance :

¶16

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kr Sinha AAG-2

¶17

======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶19

2 03-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent University.

¶20

The petitioner who holds the post of Assistant seeks mandamus against the University for publishing the final gradation list so that he can be considered for the post of Sectional Officer in accordance with law.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on

¶22

02.12.2009 the Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar has already given directions for publication of the gradation list as early as possible. The order remains un-

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.11026 of 2012 (2) dt.03-07-2012

¶24

¶25

complied till date. The petitioner has represented before the Chancellor. The Chancellor’s office on 12.03.2012 has issued instruction to the University but still the gradation list has not been published.

¶26

The publication of a gradation list is a purely administrative function. It is unfortunate that judicial orders are required for performing routine administrative duties. Had there been a lis with regard to the gradation list or any procedural infirmity before publication, matters may have been different. No such allegations have been made in the writ petition.

¶27

Sufficient time has already elapsed since the order of the Secretary, Department of Human Resources dated 02.12.2009. Even if he specified no time limit but gave an indication that it should be done as early as possible, a maximum period of six months from 02.12.2009 is considered more than sufficient for the purpose. The matter has already been sufficiently delayed. A person in service aspires and looks forward to promotion as a motivating factor both with regard to status and monetary benefits encouraging him to put in his best while in service. While Article 14 of the Constitution of India may not vest a right to be promoted it vests a fundamental right to be considered for promotion. It has been held that the right to be

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.11026 of 2012 (2) dt.03-07-2012

¶29

¶30

considered for promotion necessarily entails a timely consideration. An employee with a perceived grievance that he was not even being considered for promotion can hardly be expected to give his best to the employer working half heartedly, merely drawing his salary, which shall be to the benefit on none.

¶31

Considering that it is the contention of the petitioner that no gradation list has been drawn up even since 1992, the Court considers a period of six months as reasonable and issues mandamus to the University to publish the gradation list within the period positively. It is also expected that consequential action to consider for promotion after preparation of the gradation list shall be initiated soon after finalization.

¶32

The application stands disposed.

¶33

(Navin Sinha, J.)

¶34

Md. Ibrarul/-

Manzar Imam v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manzar Imam v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

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

Pratima Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Kalash Thakur and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pratibha Rani Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Birendra Prasad Vs Rajendra Agricultural University and Ors.

Haridwar Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sumitra Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.