AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narayan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.
The grievance of the writ Petitioners is that though they were promoted to, the posts of Assistant Child Development Project Officer, they are being treated as on officiating posts.
Prima facie, from annexure 6, it does not appear that it is an order of promotion, rather it appears that the Petitioners were posted under the scheme "Vikas Project". Moreso, it appears that the departmental promotion committee, which is said to have considered'' in different cases including that of the Petitioners, was the competent authority to grant substantive promotion to the post of Assistant Child Development Project Officer.
This Court faced with this situation vide order dated 5.12.2001 had directed the counsel for the Petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the further materials showing the competence of the authorities to promote the Petitioners on substantive posts of Assistant Child Development Officer.
Till date no supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners. However, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents wherein it is stated that the Petitioners and other lady supervisors have not been granted regular promotion to the posts of Assistant Child Development Project Officer.
From the materials on records, it appears that the Petitioners till date are working as Assistant Child Development Project Officers and they have not been promoted to the posts of Assistant Child Development Project Officers.
For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.