ANIMESH TETARWAY vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Heard learned counsel for the parties.Â

 Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Order dated 31.03.2015, issued by respondent no. 3 in terms of which 72 posts

of Clerks in 12 District Industry Centres, have been reconstituted and as per the said Office Order, the hierarchy of posts was also provided

earmarking three posts for Lower Division Clerks, two posts of Upper Division Clerks and one for Head Clerk. Further prayer has been made for a

direction upon the respondents to reconstitute the cadre of Clerks in the District Industry Centre and include the posts of Tracer and Receptionists in

the Cadre of Clerks in the District Industry Centre.Â

The facts of the case in short is that petitioner was initially appointed in the erstwhile State of Bihar on the post of Tracer in the District Industry

Centre, Giridih in the year 1993. Thereafter, he was posted at several places in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand and was entrusted with the duties of

Clerks. After bifurcation of the States, he was allocated the State of Jharkhand and presently he is posted at the District Industry Centre, Ranchi since

01.02.2016. By Notification dated 27.03.2010, the services of Jharkhand State Clerk/ Clerk-cum-Typist/ Typist/ other Clerical Services Cadre

(Appointment, Promotion and other Service Conditions), Rule, 2010 was made applicable to all the Regional Offices excluding the State Secretariat

and attached offices. Pursuant to the said Notification dated 27.03.2010, the respondent no. 3, vide office order dated 31.03.2015, reconstituted the 72

posts of Clerks in 12 District Industry Centres. As per the said office order, the hierarchy of posts were also provided. Three posts were earmarked

for Lower Division Clerks, Two posts for Upper Division Clerks and one for Head Clerk. In view of office order dated 31.03.2015, petitioner was

denuded of his opportunity to be considered for promotion. It is case of the petitioner that since inception, he has been discharging the duties and

function as a clerical staff as done by other staffs of different posts. Two posts i.e. the posts of Tracer and Receptionist has been left out on the

pretext that they are not clerical posts. Petitioner is aggrieved by this non-inclusion of two posts i.e. the posts of Tracer and Receptionist and thereby,

preferred representations before the concerned authorities but till date, no decision has been taken by them and hence present writ petition has been

preferred.Â

Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not included the two

posts i.e. the posts of Tracer and Receptionist in the cadre of Clerks and the same is highly prejudicial to the service career of the petitioner. Learned

counsel further submits that the State of Bihar has already recognised these two posts as a Clerical posts. Learned counsel further submits that this

anomaly is also against the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. Learned counsel further submits that any policy whereby all promotional avenues in

respect of a category of employee for all times to come, cannot be nullified and the same would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel further submits that State cannot deny the equality before the law or the equal protection of law. Per contra, counter affidavit has

been filed.Â

Mr. Srijit Choudhury, learned Sr. S.C.-III draws attention of this Court towards para-14 of the counter affidavit and very fairly submits that the

respondents are aware that the petitioner had been discharging his duties as a Clerk and inadvertently they were not included in the cadre of clerks

and as such, their case is under active consideration by the Department. The Department is taking all possible endeavour to resolve the issue and may

merge the posts with the posts of Lower Division Clerks and benefits thereto shall also be notified by the Department.Â

In view of fair submission of learned Sr. S.C.-III and also in view of the fact that case of the petitioner is under active consideration, it appears that

petitioner ought to have waited for final decision of the Department and without waiting for the same, he has rushed to this Court and as such, this writ

petition is premature. However, to avoid any multiplicity of case, I hereby direct the respondents to take a decision as expeditiously as possible,

preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and after taking a decision in the matter,

communicate the same to the petitioner. Let it be made clear that if grievance of the petitioner is not redressed, liberty is given to him to move before

appropriate forum.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.Â