GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER FOR SHIV NARAYAN V/S UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 30 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:

1. Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is, inter-alia, assailing the action of the respondent authorities in not granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector (General Duty) despite the recommendation of the departmental promotion committee (DPC) in his favour, and promoting the respondent No. 4 to the said post by order dated 16.05.2011, who is junior to the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially working as Head Constable (General Duty) in the Sashatra Seema Bal from 05.08.1995 and thereafter, he has been employed in the armed force.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the draft Seniority List of the Head Constable (General Duty) published by the respondent No. 3 vide Office Memorandum dated 20.01.2011, the petitioner's name appeared in serial no. 297, whereas the respondent No. 4's name appeared at serial no. 298. It is pertinent that the petitioner was promoted as Naik (Nk) (General Duty) on 29.06.2002, whereas the respondent No. 4 was promoted to the said rank on 13.07.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Head Constable (General Duty) on 05.09.2005. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 was further promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector (General Duty) by order dated 16.05.2011, whereas the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Assistant SubInspector (General Duty) on 26.06.2012, giving effect from 25.06.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the recommendation of the DPC to promote the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector (General Duty), the respondent No. 4 who is junior to him has been promoted ignoring the case of the petitioner. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the recommendation of the DPC in his favour ought to have been accepted by the respondent authorities and that the denial of promotion in his case amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment, particularly when, according to the petitioner, in the case of two similarly situated persons, the respondents had granted relaxation in the prescribed qualifying service. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that since the DPC recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion, the government ought to have relaxed the statutory period of length of service. He further submits that since in the case of two similarly situated persons, the government has relaxed the said statutory minimum period of length of service, nonrelaxation in the case of the petitioner amounts to discrimination, and hence Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India stands contravened. He accordingly submits that since the petitioner's claim for the subject promotion has not been considered fairly in an equitable manner, the action of the government for non-relaxation of the said statutory period of length of service warrants interference from this court under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. In support of his submission that the petitioner has been discriminated, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Munshi Ram in Civil Appeal No. 2811/2022 (Arising from S.L.P (Civil) No. 6526/2022 @ Diary No. 27620/2020).

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=LfKgAEL6K8Sqqfv6TysK%2BO69b6b7c3fsqHM7K9O6HReBxrD4illu%2B90m1ID%2FARGq&caseno=WP(C)/5412/2012&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010122702012&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.