Smt. Shail Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1926 of 2016 Smt. Shail Gupta W/o Shri Chandra Kumar Gupta, Aged About 52 Years Employed As Lady Health Visitor Community Health Centre, Berla District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Deptt. Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur 492002 (Chhattisgarh).

2. The Director, Health Services, Block A, 3rd Floor Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Raipur Division, Nurses, Hostel, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Vishwanath Goswami, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy. Govt. Advocate S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 13/06/2016 Heard on admission.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that her case for promotion on the post of Block Extension Educator (BEE) is not being considered in terms of Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Paramedical and Nursing (Secretariat Health Services) Class III Recruitments Rules, 2013. As per this Rules, it is submitted that the petitioner has completed 5 years of service on the post of Lady Health Visitor and she has become entitled for being considered for promotion to the next higher post of BEE. The representation of the petitioner has been forwarded to the higher authority also

-2vide memo dated 7.10.2015 (Annexure P-11), but till date, no steps have been taken.

2. In the petition, there is no averment that there are vacant posts of BEE. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at least the respondents should inform whether the post are available or not.

3. Unless there is a clear averment in the petition regarding availability of vacancy, direction for consideration of cases for promotion cannot be issued. As and when promotional posts are available, the petitioner would be at liberty to represent and if she is not considered within a reasonable time, she may take recourse to appropriate remedy.

4. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen