Avon Das Banjare v. State of Chhattisgarh

Judgment

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Panchayat Department Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)

2. ' Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raipur, Collectorate RaiipurfC.G.)

3. Commissioner Adiwasi Vikash, 1 Adimjati, Anusuchit Jati, •-, Pichhada Warg Avara Alp Sankhyak Kalyan Vibhag, Raipur -?..* / ^8€^ (C.G.)

4. Conimissioner (Revenue) Raipur :>i Division Raipur (C.G.) S'. ^^e Co^-Le.cte<, R^-f'u^., <^U&<J5-<^t<» <i^^ifu-\, [^''-sb^icJt R.<u-y"-\ (.C--^) ^< ^ WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION_2L1) QiLCHHATnSGARH

HIGH COURT APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH ACT 2006 JP(?ir) rr 'a.d-cr-^i^Trfiuj—'b^c—a. •< I—. HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR ^ Division Bench: Hon'ble ShrLSunil Kumar Sinha SB. Hon'ble Shn R.N. Chandrakar. J J Wnt Appeal No. 1055 of 2012 Avon Das Banjare Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 85 Others ORDER For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.N. CHANDRAKAR Ct^-eJL ^ •R.N. CSiandrakar Judge Post for Order : 2. ^710/2013 Sd/- ^•sssas ^^.aA '•*•... '''^^•^' ..^' ^- -i.sanS^ "b HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon^l^Sliri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. J J APPELLANT PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Aooeal No. 1055 of 2012 Avon Das Banjare S/o P.D. Banjare, aged aboyt 41 years, R/o C/o Medha Sonkar, Near Hanuraan Mandir Gudhiyari Para, Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus D.K.S. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary Panchayat Department Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat Raipur, Collectorate Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner Adiwasi Vikash, Adimjati, Jati, Pichhada Warg Alp Sankhyak Kalyan Vibhag, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner Division Raipur (C.G.) The Collectorate Raipur (C.G.) (Revenue) Raipur Raipur, District Anusuchit Collector, Raipur, Avarn 4 5 (Writ Appeal under Section 2(11 ofthe Chhattisearh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench), Act 2006) Appearance: Mr. Vivek Rathore, Advocatefo the appeUant. Mr. A.S. Kachhwaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State/ respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5. None for respondent No.2. ..'•-^scl t.., ;'i'':"".,.sy ""s"-?:^-' a'>'/ WritApceal No. 1055 of 2012 ORDER (25'. 10.2013) Following the Court was delivered SunU Kunaar Sinha. J. (1) The appellant/petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27th of February, 2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7466/2010, by which his writ petition was dismissed by the Writ Court. (2) Pursuant to an advertisement of District Panchayat Raipur, the appellant appeared in interview, for selection to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II (Maths), on 6.7.1998. According to him, he was having requisite qualification, but was not selected. Thereafter he filed ah appeal before the Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur, which was disposed of on 14.5.1999 and his matter was remanded for re-consideration. On re-consideration of his case, he was declared selected and a letter to this effect was issued on 1.6.2000. When the appointment order was not issued till the year 2005, the appeUant ffled W.P. No. 2228/2005 and ultknately an appointment order was issued to the appellant on

13.9.2005. The appellant joined thereafter and made several representations to grant him seniority in the light of the orders

14.5.1999,

17.5.2000 or

1.6.2000; to consider his seniority/experience from the said date, for promotion to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I; to grant the difference of pay etc till date; and also to give higher pay scale which is given after 8 years 's- £' .A-y WritAppeal No. 1055 of 2012 ^ of service. When the above demands were not fulfilled, the writ petition was filed, which was disniissed. Hence this appeal. (3) Mr. Vivek Rathore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that there was no fault on the part of the appellant; the respondents had delayed the issuance of his appointment letter; therefore, the appellant is entitled for seniority and experience from the date of passing of the order by Commissioner (Appellate Authority) i.e. 14.5.1999 or at least from the date when he was declared selected on 1.6.2000. (4) On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (5) We have heard counsel for the parties. (6) The appeUant was aggrieved by his non-selection, therefore, the statutoiy appeal (No. 229/B-121/97-98) was filed before the Commissioner and the matter was simply remanded to the concerned authorities to re-consider the case of the appeUant in light of circular dated 8.4.1997. Thereafter his case was re- consider and ultimately he was declared selected by the concerned authority by order dated 1.6.2000, but the appointment letter was issued to the appellant on 13.9.2005. This shows that appellant born in cadre only on his joining in pursuance of the -;-s> -».. 4 .••-I (' WritAppeal No. 1055 of 2012 appointment letter issued to him on 13.9.2005, and in such situation, he had no right to claim seniority/experience/difference of pay from any date prior to his joining on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II. Merely on account of a person being selected or his name finding place in the selected list, he cannot claim such benefits from the date of publication of the selected list. His right to make such claim would accrue only from the date ofjoining as he wozzld not be in service prior to the date of his joining and no such claini would be permissible in his favour. (7) So far as the claim of entitlement for consideration for proinotion to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I is concemed, Rule 5(1) (B) and Rule 8 read with SCHEDULE-IV of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 provide that for promotion to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I, a candidate must be holding Post Graduate Degree in the related subject and experience of not less than seven years in the post held, i.e. in the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II. This shows fhat experience of 7 years was mandatory, and the appellant, in any case, cannot claim experience for the period in which he never worked, as the experience can only be achieved when a person actuaUy works on the concerned post. Thus the case of the appellant was rightly not considered either for promotion or for higher grade on account of lack ofrequisite experience. ."s'- '-*,. ' Writ Aoueal No. 1055 of 2012 For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirraity in the impugned order passed by the Single Judge. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby disraissed. ^ ^ K Sd/- SunU Kumar Siuha Judge R.N. Ciiaisdrakas