Dismissed

Jagdish Prasad Shringi v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2019WRW/117/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge regarding his non-promotion to Scientific Officer grade. The Court held that the Rules governing fast track promotion require additional qualifications to carry minimum marks of 60%, and the petitioner's 40% marks precluded his eligibility regardless of other candidates' promotions.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed finding petitioner ineligible for promotion due to insufficient marks in additional qualification.

Jagdish Prasad Shringi Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 117/2019

¶3

Jagdish Prasad Shringi S/o Shri Mathura Lal Shringi, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Qr. No. J-30-A, Heavy Water Plant , Kota, Residential Colony, Rawatbhatta, District Chittorgarh. At Present Posted As Sa/f, Heavy Water Plant , Kota

¶4

Versus

¶5

Union Of India, Through Its Chief Executive, Heavy Water Board, V.s. Bhawan, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094

¶6

The Administrative Officer, Heavy Water Plant (Kota), Anushakti - 323303

¶7

The General Manager, Heavy Water Plant (Kota), Anushakti - 323303

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vishal Singhal assisted by Mr.Sumit Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mahaveer Bishnoi

¶10

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

02/08/2019

¶13

In this review petition the grievance urged is that this Court did not take into consideration the relevant facts with respect to the so called grant of opportunity and consideration of the review petitioner’s case for promotion to the grade of SO / D.

¶14

The respondent-department has argued that upon the review petitioner acquiring additional qualification (AMIE), his case along with the service record was put up for consideration for promotion. However, in terms of the rules which came into force in February 2003, his name was not recommended.

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[WRW-117/2019]

¶17

This Court has considered the submission of the parties. The

¶18

relevant extract of the Rules are as follows:-

¶19

“8.0 Change of track shall be applicable to only the following categories of personnel and is to be considered only at the time of promotion to the next higher grade and not in midstream. In such cases the following guidelines shall apply:

¶20

a) Deserving persons in grades SA (C, D, E, F) can be put up for promotion to grades SO (SB, C, D, E) respectively. Specific Recommendation for promotion to equivalent Scientific Officer grade [eg. SA ‘E’ to SO (D)] should be made by the concerned Division at the time when the case is put up for promotion. Existing criteria for promotion to scientific officer grades will apply, namely, work record of the candidate and aptitude and capability for research and/or development work, as judged by the Selection Committee during interview. The Selection Committee may however decide to promote the candidate either to scientific officer grade or to NHG in the Technical Stream only i.e. Scientific Assistant grades or to defer the case.

¶21

b) Deserving persons in grades T’ man (D, E, F, G, H, J) can be put up for promotion to supervisory grades, Chargehand, Asst. Foreman A, B, C, D respectively. Specific recommendation for changeover to equivalent supervisory grade, (eg. T’ man ‘F’ to Foreman ‘A’) should be made by concerned Division at the time when the case is put for promotion. Existing criteria for promotion to supervisory grades will apply namely, work record of the candidate and capability of the candidate to work in supervisory capacity, as judged by the Selection Committee during interview. The Selection Committee may however decide to promote the candidate either to supervisory grade or to NHG in Tradesmen grade only or to defer the case. c) Promotion or Change of track from Draftsmen grades to Scientific Officer grades is not permitted. In specially deserving cases Promotion from D’ man F’ grade to SO (E) grade can be considered provided such cases are put up as special cases with approval of respective Group Board and Trombay Council.

¶22

10.0 Guidelines for promotion on acquiring additional qualifications while in service:

¶23

xxxxxx

¶24

10.3 Following will be the criteria for considering cases for promotion on acquiring additional qualification while in service.

¶25

	Additional Qualification	Min. marks to be obtained in the final exam. of additional qualification	To considered promotion grade
(i)	B.Sc.	60%	SA ‘B’
(ii)	Diploma in Engg.	60%	SA ‘B’
_(iii) _	M.sc.	60%	SO ‘C’
_(iv) _	AMIE/AMIA/BE/B.Tech	60%	SO ‘C’

¶26

For cases at (i) & (ii) above, Selection Committees can promote the candidates to grade SA ‘B’ only. The candidate should not be promoted to grade SA ‘A’ under any circumstances.

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

[WRW-117/2019]

¶29

For cases at (iii) & (iv) above, Selection Committees can promote the candidates to one grade lower also i.e. to grade SO (SB).

¶30

In cases of candidates, who acquire M.Sc. by Thesis/Research and where marks are not awarded, the concerned Divisions should consider such cases based on the subject of Thesis/Research work and put up as special case for consideration, evaluation and approval by respective Group Boards and Trombay Council."

¶31

It is quite evident on a plain reading of the above provisions that a fast track promotion is provided upon acquiring additional qualification. The candidates had to pass the prescribed higher qualification. In this case, the petitioner, who at the relevant time working as SA / E and (therefore was in line for promotion as SO / D) did acquire a higher qualification i.e. AMIE. However, he did not fulfill one essential pre-requisite i.e. the minimum marks of 60%. On this ground alone, his case for fast track promotion could not be acceded to.

¶32

An attempt was made on the part of the review petitioner to say that the aforelisted categories are only by way of illustration and cannot be considered as restriction of a candidate’s right to be considered for promotion in other cadres as well.

¶33

This Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the arguments that it would be possible that candidates with AMEI or Engineering qualification having 40% marks, can still claim fast track promotion on the basis of similarly acquiring some higher qualification in respect of its uniformity. Therefore, the table annexed in para 10.3 has to be seen as one that governs the issue of fast track promotion.

¶34

Counsel for the petitioner submits that some others were granted promotion; In the opinion of this Court, that fact is not relevant. The details of the cadres in which the others were promoted and whether there was parity so as to enable the

¶35

(4 of 4)

¶36

[WRW-117/2019]

¶37

petitioner to claim a legitimate grievance, are not before the Court.

¶38

There is no merit in the review petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶39

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶40

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ

¶41

1-Kshama Dixit/-

Jagdish Prasad Shringi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad Shringi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Revant Ram Meghwal

Maharana Pratap.U.of. a. and T. and Anr. Vs Kailash Dangi

Mangi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmi Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Sharda Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Vs State of Rajasthan