Rohit Kumar Sonkar, v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4743 of 2020

1. Rohit Kumar Sonkar, S/o Late Shri Sonu Ram Sonkar, Aged About 41 Years Working As Sub Auditor And Posted At Office Of Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Society, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

2. Bed Prakash Sahu, S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Sahu, Aged About 37 Years Working As Sub Auditor And Posted At Office Of Deputy Registrar, CoOperative Society, Dhamtari District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Registrar, Co-Operative Society Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Sangeeta Daharwal, Co-Operative Inspector, At Office Of Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Society, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

4. Ku. Nisha Soni, Co-Operative Inspector, At Office Of Deputy Registrar, CoOperative Society, Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate.

For State :

Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08.12.2020

1. The only grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that inspite of the fact that the petitioners are senior to the respondents No.3&4 and the petitioners were also found eligible for promotion to the post of Sub-Auditor-II/Co-operative Inspector, on 20.09.2018 the respondents No.3&4 have been granted promotion ignoring the claim of the petitioners.

2. According to the petitioners, the criteria for promotion was seniority-cummerit and that the only reason perhaps for not considering the cases of the petitioners was non availability of ACRs at the relevant point of time with the respondents. The petitioners further submits that immediately

-2thereafter the petitioners have been making repeated representations to the authorities concerned, but the same has not been decided yet.

3. Given the said contentions that the petitioners have raised, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to immediately process the representation that the petitioners have made so far as they being superseded by the respondents No.3&4 for promotion for no fault of the petitioners and an appropriate decision be taken at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder