Rajkamal Kurrey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 10802 of 2019 Rajkamal Kurrey S/o Shri Babulal Kurrey Aged About 33 Years Working As Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, At Veterinary Hospital Bhaisma, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Veterinary Hospital , Mahanadi Bhawan , Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Director, Veterinary Department Indravati Bhanwan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Deputy Director Veterinary Hospital Sevices Korba , District Korba Chhattisgarh

4. Mukesh Kumar Lanjikar S/o Naradram Lanjikar Aged About 33 Years Address Office Of DDVS Cattle Breading Form Anjora Durg Chhattisgarh.

----Respondents For petitioner - Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. For State- Smt. Richa Shukla, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 02/01/2020 1.

Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner though joined in 2007 earlier to the respondent No.4 namely Mukesh Kumar Lanjikar and the petitioner was meritorious and secured more marks, he was senior to the respondent No.4, however in the seniority list he has been placed below respondent No.4, therefore despite the fact that the petitioner was senior to the respondent No.4 the petitioner has been shown as junior. It is further contended that in order to correct the said position the petitioner has made an application to the Director Veterinary by Annexure P-4 and limited prayer has been made that the said application of the petitioner may be decided so that seniority of the petitioner qua the respondent No.4 may be considered and decided.

2.

Perusal of Annexure P-4 would show that the application has been

filed on the ground that the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.4, however wrongly he has been shown junior to respondent No.4. Under these facts, it is directed that the application filed by the petitioner by Annexure P-4 may be decided so that inter se seniority in between the petitioner and respondent No.4 are decided. It goes without saying that while deciding said fact authorities concerned including respondent No.4 shall also be heard so that any order if at all are passed he is made known to the same. Said order may be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

3.

With such observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE gouri