SGAmiAT v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the foregoing, this petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 226(1)
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.P. (S1 No. 2054 OF 2013 PETITIONER Anil Kumar Chandel Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh 8s others WRIT ^ETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Mr. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. O R D ER (oral) ( Passed on this 16th day'of July, 2013 ) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India on the apprehension that in the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, the petitioner's case inay not be considered in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Public Works Engineering (Gazetted Service) Rules, 1969, as ainended from time to time. Learned counsel for th& petitioner contended that the (2) petitioner is working as Sub Engineer in the Public Works Department.
According to the scheme of promotion, envisaged under the Rules, out of 50% of the posts of Assistant Engineer, 35% of the posts are to be filled up from amongst eligible Sub Engineers. The petitioner is an eligible officer, however, looking to the past practice of the respondents, the petitioner apprehends that as he is not possessed of the 'Diploma', he raay not be considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer. submission of (3) petitioner is that after amendment in the Rules, in the year 'Diploma' has already been 1991, the requirement of learned counsel Further omitted. ~s -»^ ^: (4) submits On the of her hand, learned counsel for the State apprehension of the petitioner inisconceived that the respondents inay not consider the case for promotion in accordance with the Rules, 1969. He the promotion to the post of Assistant submits that Engineer in the Public Works Department shall be made in accordance with the statutory scheme of promotion as per the Rules, 1969, as amended from time to time.
Operative part
In view of the submissions, as has been made by (5) learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court is not inclined to keep the matter pending and inclined to dispose of this petition with the observation that the promotion shall be made in accordance with the relevant Rules, as amended, and in force, at the time of consideration of the case of promotion. In view of the foregoing, this petition is disposed of (6) Gnally. (7) No cost. —~ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Thakur ~s T"
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the foregoing, this petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 226(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.