High CourtsSingle Bench(2016) 01 CAL CK 0092

Dr. Asis Kumar Sarkar vs Coal India Limited & Others

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 18 January 2016 · Citation: (2016) 2 SLR 585

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjib Banerjee, J.
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
WP No. 1164 of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 350 words

Sanjib Banerjee, J.—The petitioner complains of an order of June 2, 2015 by which the petitioner''s representation for being considered for promotion has been rejected.

2.

On a previous petition of this petitioner, WP No.2216(W) of 2015, this Court had required the petitioner''s fresh representation to be considered in accordance with law by the second respondent to the earlier petition. The order also provided that if the second respondent to such earlier petition was of the opinion that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria, due reasons in support of the decision should be communicated.

3.

The petitioner''s representation was considered afresh. The order dated June 2, 2015 records that the promotion policy under which the petitioner seeks a consideration of his case has been set aside by an order of September 26, 2014 and an appeal is pending therefrom.

4.

The petitioner says that the petitioner cannot be denied a promotion indefinitely merely because some other promotion had been challenged and an order has been passed by the Supreme Court.

5.

Though there is sufficient justification for the petitioner being unwilling to await the adjudication of the appeal while the petitioner''s candidature is put on hold, it does not appear that the Coal India Limited has any other option as the promotion policy itself has been declared as unconstitutional and has been set aside.

6.

In view of the cogent reasons given for denying the petitioner an immediate opportunity of being considered for promotion, WP No.1164 of 2015 is disposed of by not interfering with the order impugned and requesting the petitioner to urge Coal India Limited to have its appeal disposed of as expeditiously as possible. In the event Coal India Limited is unable to have the relevant appeal disposed of within three months from date, the respondents will consider the petitioner''s candidature for promotion under a new promotion policy that should be kept ready.

7.

There will be no order as to costs.

8.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.