AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Chandrashekhar, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to grant promotion to him on the post of Assistant District Public Relation Officer. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Unit Clerk on 05.01.1981 on compassionate ground and presently he is working as Receptionist at Chaibasa. On 03.7.1987, a notification was issued indicating the criteria for promotion on the post of Assistant District Public Relation Officer. The petitioner fulfilled all the conditions, however he was not granted promotion. The petitioner made several representations including representations dated 10.07.1987, 31.08.1995 etc., however he was not granted promotion. Finally after the bifurcation of the State of erstwhile State of Bihar, the petitioner submitted representation on 18.07.2005 also. Since the representation of the petitioner was not decided and the petitioner was not granted promotion, he moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5800 of 2005 which was disposed of by order dated 01.09.2009 on the statement made by the respondent-State that the Rules would be framed and implemented by the State Government. However, as the Rules were not framed, the petitioner preferred Contempt Case (Civil) No. 232 of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.01.2012 as by that time, the rules were framed and issued vide notification dated 14.11.2011, however the provisions of which have also not implemented by the respondent-State and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.
A counter affidavit has been filed stating as under:
That the present petition is based on similar facts and circumstances as that of W.P. (S) No. 5800 of 2005 filed by the petitioner earlier and hence barred by the principle of Res judicata (this principle envisages that there must be an end to litigation and finality of judgments).
That the petitioner was appointed as Unit Clerk in I.P.R.D. on 05.01.1981 on compassionate grounds. That he had applied for promotion in the year 1987 in the undivided Bihar and that as he was Unit Clerk holding a non-technical class three post and was not found eligible for promotion and was informed accordingly.
That rule relating to the appointment and promotion of the non-gazetted employees has been enshrined in Appointment Rules (Estb. 04/06 No. 48, memo No. 828 dated 14.11.2011). This has not been implemented due to certain inadvertent errors in it which first needs to be corrected and rectified. After the correction of the rule the promotion process will be undertaken and those found eligible would be given promotion accordingly.
That there is no provision and scope for unit clerk/Receptionist to straightaway be promoted to the post of Additional District Public Relations officer (A.D.P.R.O.)/District Public Relations Officer (D.P.R.O.). That the post of A.D.P.R.O. as per above mentioned rule is to be filled by promotion. This is an error and post of A.D.P.R.O. is to be filled directly through competitive examination for which rules are being framed. The post of D.P.R.O. is to be filled by competitive examination on the recommendation of Jharkhand Public Service Commission (J.P.S.C.). Some of the post of D.P.R.O. is promotional that also requires recommendation of J.P.S.C. Moreover all the post of Asstt. Public Relations Officer (A.P.R.O.) has been converted into contractual post which would be outsourced. Hence the petitioner is not an eligible candidate for promotion to A.D.P.R.O./D.P.R.O.
That the petitioner has also got two financial benefits in the nature of A.C.P. (Assured career progression)/M.A.C.P. (Modified Assured Career Progression). The petitioner has already been given 1st A.C.P. and 1st M.A.C.P. The 2nd M.A.C.P. is in process of being given. This process will soon be concluded. The financial/monetary benefit is given to those employees who have not got promotion on regular basis.
That the petitioner often wrote letter directly to the superior officer defying the established norms of departmental correspondence. There are many instances when the petitioner tried to put pressure on departmental authorities by way of canvassing and pairvi which is strictly against Govt. circular No. 3237 dated 17.04.1963.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since in the previous proceeding the respondents gave a specific statement that the Rules would be framed and implemented by them however, in violation of the Court''s order, the respondent-State has not implemented the provisions of the said Resolution in the case of the petitioner.
Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that in the present proceeding, the petitioner has suppressed orders dated 01.09.2009 and 25.01.2012 which would indicate that show-cause filed by the respondent-State was accepted by this Court and thereafter, the contempt proceeding was dropped. She has further submitted that in view of the dismissal of the first writ petition, the present proceeding is barred by res judicata and it cannot be entertained by this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.