Dismissed

Rampratap Charan v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 Sept 2015CW/14116/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Headmaster. The petitioner claimed illegal deprivation of promotion despite vacant posts. The High Court found no case made out as the petitioner failed to prove that a junior was promoted in violation of seniority-cum-merit rules.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking promotion was dismissed with the finding that no case was made out.

Rampratap Charan Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

: O R D E R :

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14116/2013

¶5

Rampratap Charan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 11.09.2015

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶8

Mr. G.R. Bhari, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. B.L. Bhati, Govt. Advocate, for the respondents.

¶10

BY THE COURT:

¶11

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking promotion to the post of Headmaster and a prayer has been made to declare the action of the respondents in depriving the petitioner of promotion as illegal.

¶12

It is, inter alia, indicating in the petition that the petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher Grade-III on temporary basis on 23.12.1988. Whereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Teacher Grade-II in March, 2009. It is, inter alia, claimed that by order dated 07.05.2013, the respondents have promoted persons against vacancies for the year 2012-13 as Headmaster, however, the petitioner has not been promoted. A further case is made out that over 100 posts were lying vacant, however the respondents were not taking action to fill-up the same and the petitioner is being deprived of promotion.

¶13

¶14

A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents,

¶15

wherein it is categorically indicated as under:-

¶16

“9. That the contents made in para no.9 of the writ petition are denied. It is most humbly submitted that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Senior Teacher in the year 2009-10 and no employee who was promoted in the year 2009-10 as Senior Teacher, have been promoted on the post of Headmaster vide order Annexure-4. It is also relevant to mention here that the promotion is made on the basis of seniority-cum merit and no junior persons than petitioner have been promoted on the post of Head Master vide promotion order Ann.- 4. Therefore, this writ petition has been preferred without any cause of action and without any basis. As such same deserves to be dismissed with cost.”

¶17

From the reply filed by the respondents, it is apparent that the criteria for promotion to the post of Headmaster is seniority-cum merit and factually no person junior to the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Headmaster.

¶18

It is settled law that an employee has right to be considered for promotion, however, the right to get promotion does not exist. The only case, which the petitioner could made out was that a person junior to him has been promoted, which in view of the categorical assertion made by the respondents is not the case.

¶19

In view of the above, no case is made out.

¶20

There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶21

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶22

PKS-32

Rampratap Charan v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampratap Charan v. State 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

Marwar Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs Pani Devi and Ors.

Iliyas Khan Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Kiran Vs State and Ors.

Amra Ram Vs State and Ors.

Ram Lal Meghwal and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

State of Raj. Vs M/S. Nav Bharat Const. Company