Surendra Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4350 of 2020

1. Surendra Singh S/o Late Ram Darash Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o 18/13, Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Pin- 490020 ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Energy Department, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin- 492015

2. Secretary General Administration Department, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin- 492015

3. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission Through Chairman, Shanti Nagar, Irrigation Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 492001

4. Secretary Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Shanti Nagar, Irrigation Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 492001 ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Saurabh Dangi, Advocate.

For State : Shri Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A.

For respondents No. 3 & 4 : Shri Shivang Dubey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 01.12.2020

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition seems to be non convention of the DPC by the respondents for promotion to the post of Director from the feeder post of Joint Director.

2. According to the petitioner, he has become eligible and for some reasons or other, the respondents are not convening the DPC, denying the petitioner's rightful claim for being considered for the promotional post.

3. Shri Shivang Dubey, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents submits that the minimum eligibility criteria for promotion from the Joint Director to the Director is having five years of experience on the post of joint Director. The petitioner in the instant case has completed five years of service only in August 2020. Shri Shivang Dubey further submits that the DPC is normally convened under the respondents during the first quarter of a year and in the first quarter of the current year, the petitioner was not eligible, he became eligible only in the second half of the year, his case would be considered in the next DPC that would be convened by the respondents. Subject to the petitioner also being eligible for the said promotional post.

4. Given the said statement by the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of expecting the respondents to conduct a DPC in accordance with the normal procedures prevailing under the respondents as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents and ofcourse subject to the petitioner fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria, his case be also considered for promotion.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyotijha