Arvind Kumar Kurram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1079 of 2019 Arvind Kumar Kurram S/o Late Shri Prem Singh Aged About 31 Years Posted As Assistant Grade II At ITI Maalkharoda, Police Station And Tahsil Maalkharoda District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Technical Education Man Power Planing Science And Technology Mantralaya Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh .

2. The Director, Directorate Employment And Training Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Collector District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

4. Superintendent Industrial Training Institute District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

5. Shri Akash Maheshwari Posted As Assistant Grade II Industrial Training Institute Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 07/03/2019

1. The only grievance, which the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that the petitioner ought to had been considered for promotion on 04.10.2010, when his junior respondent No.5 was granted promotion, though it has been informed that the petitioner subsequently has been promoted in the year 2017. The issue now left is only whether the petitioner would have been entitled for promotion along with his immediate junior i.e. respondent No.5.

-22. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, so far as his entitlement is concerned, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner, as to why he was not considered for promotion in the year 2010 inspite of the petitioner being senior to the respondent No.5, who was promoted on 04.10.2010.

3. Let the respondent No.2 take a decision in this regard and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

4. In addition, the petitioner would also be entitled to make a fresh representation in respect of his grievance to the respondent No.2.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved