Sanjay Kumar Kapse v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, so
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.01.21 20:02:42 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:3343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4553 of 2024 Krishna Kumar Shukla S/o Shri Balram Shukla Aged About 60 Years Working As Junior Engineer (Trainee) Civil in Power Transmission And Distribution Company Limited, Tifra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, R/o Bapte Bhavan, Kilaward, Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - Chhattisgarh Power Holding Company Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Dagania, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chintamani Tiwari Working As Junior Engineer Trainee, CSPDCL Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Veena Nair, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 20.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Veena Nair, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 2. The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following relief(s):- 2 “10.1) That the entire record pertaining to the appointment policy for the post of Diploma (Trainee) Junior Engineer (Trainee) from the year 1987 till date and process of selection adopted in this regard during this period be requisitioned from the custody of the respondent. 10.2) That, the change of policy contained in order of Annexure P/10 be quashed and in consequence the candidates selected for interview contained in Annexure P/13 be also quashed and respondent be directed not issue any order of appointment as per the outcome of the written test conducted on 18.08.2002. 10.3) That, the respondent be directed to decide the application submitted by petitioner for his appointment as per policy contained in Annexure P/4 forthwith and apprise the same to the petitioner. 10.4) That, case of the petitioner is similar to the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 62/2000 Sanjay Kumar Kapse Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, so petitioner is entitled for same relief. 10.5) This Hon'ble court direct the respondent to grant seniority to the petitioner as per circular dated 04.03.1987 and 09.11.1989. 3 10.6) To kindly issue any other order/direction as deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was in service with the respondent since 1989. The petitioner was Drawing Office Assistant Grade-1 (Civil) who passed his Diploma Course in the year 1996 securing 77.8% marks with honours. The respondent No.1 vide order dated 04.03.1987 decided as a onetime measure that all departmental candidates who obtained Diploma in Engineering while in service and who had put in four years of service under the Board till 31.12.1986 could be directly appointed as Diploma Trainees. However, in reference to the said order, the respondent issued yet another order dated 09.11.1989 and by the said order, it was decided that each of the Class-III and Class-IV employees working under the Board on a post lower than Junior Engineer and who had acquired Diploma in Engineering during service may be considered for appointment as Diploma Trainee provided (i) they have put in atleast 4 years of service on regular establishment (ii) their performance during the last 4 years has been satisfied and (iii) they have obtained atleast 50% marks in Diploma it was also directed that the cases of such employees was to be considered by 31st August every year by the Board in one lot and their application for appointment as Diploma Trainee was to be forwarded through proper channel to the Board at least by 30th September every year to the Joint Secretary for necessary 4 action. The petitioner with a view to take advantage of the order of the Board applied for permission to pursue Part-time Diploma Course in Civil Engineering Discipline to the Board from the year 1995 to 1997 respectively. The respondent permitted the petitioner to undertake the Course and thereafter the petitioner after securing admission in Part-time Diploma Course of Madhya Pradesh Board of Technical Education Bhopal passed the Semester Diploma Course. 4. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vide circular dated 04.03.1987 and 09.11.1989 notified that the Boards employees who have acquired Diploma in Engineering with atleast 50% marks may apply for appointment as Diploma Trainee which was to be forwarded through proper channel by 30th September every year to the Joint Secretary (P-1) for necessary action with a view to take advantage of this scheme of the Board, the petitioner after seeking due permission from the Board did his Diploma course in Civil Engineering in the year 1995 to 1997 and submitted his application through proper channel for appointment to the post of Diploma Trainee. However the respondent did not take any decision on his application and did not appoint him as Junior Engineer (Trainee) and ultimately issued an order dated 04.07.2002 superseding its earlier order dated 07.06.1989 and 09.11.1989 regarding appointment of departmental candidates to the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee) and instead decided to 5 conduct separate written test and interview of all such departmental candidates for appointment as Junior Engineer (Trainee) working as Class III and Class IV technical employees who had passed Diploma or part time Diploma in Engineering with minimum experience of 10 years on technical side in MPEB through the petitioner was aggrieved by this decision of the board and made representation against it through his representative union however appeared in the written test which was conducted on 18th August 2002 in this written test all class III & Class IV employees working under the Board and had put in 10 years of service were made. The said examination was conducted without declaring the mode and marking of examination. It was also not clarified as to what extra weightage was to be given to the employees who had passed his Diploma earlier and the marks secured by the candidates in the Diploma Engineering Examination. The examination was conducted without notifying any syllabus for the examination. The result of the examination was declared on the same day and respondent was called for interview on 19th August 2002. However, the petitioner was not called for interview. The petitioner is entitled for promotion as Assistant Engineer as per the order dated 22.04.2013 in W.P. No. 62/2000 passed by this Hon'ble Court, in which circular dated 07.06.1989, 15.11.1990, 01.03.1993 clearly shows that Junior Engineer who obtained Diploma/degree are entitled for promotion. 6 5. Earlier petitioner filed a writ petition being WPS No. 1729/2014 which was withdrawn on 01.07.2024 with liberty to file duly constituted petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been promoted at par with Mr. Chintamani Tiwari, respondent No.2 in this writ petition, who has been promoted way back in the year 2002 and the petitioner is claiming that he is also required to be promoted from the year 2002 along with Mr. Chintamani Tiwari. It has been contended that the petitioner is going to retire on 31.01.2025, as such a direction be issued to the respondent No.1 to consider and decide his representation dated 09.01.2012 (Annexure P/14) pending before respondent No.1 within a short span so that his retiral dues may be calculated according to his entitlement. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that she is having no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the pending representation dated 09.01.2012 (Annexure P/14) submitted by the petitioner may be considered and decided by the respondent authorities i.e. respondent No.1 expeditiously. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the documents annexed with
Decision
the writ petition. 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as 7 well as upon appreciating the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the respondent No.1 is directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner dated 09.01.2012 (Annexure P/14) for grant of promotion in a pragmatic manner within a period of 10 days from today keeping in mind that the petitioner is going to retire on 31.01.2025. The said exercise be done within such period as directed above, so that he may get his service benefits effectively. 10. With the aforementioned observation/direction, instant writ petition stands disposed of. Yogesh Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge