It was a bounden obligation of the respondents, to revere the entry in the service book of the employ, rather displaying his acquiring matriculation qualification. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Jeet Ram Versus State of H.P. and others [CWPOA No. 7751 of 2019] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
The writ petition was filed petition claiming a mandamus, to be pronounced upon the respondents that he be promoted as Clerk, from the date, when certain juniors to him, in the category of Peons, were accorded promotion to the next higher thereto posts of Clerks. Undisputedly, a 15% quota was reserved for Class-IV employees, for theirs being promoted to the next higher post of Clerk. The writ petitioner was appointed on a compassionate basis, in the year 1998, and at the afore stage, he did not possess the matriculation certificate. He, though, acquired the matriculation qualification in October, 2003. However, it was apparent on a reading of reply, to the writ petition, as, instituted by the respondents, that in the year 2003, the fact of the writ petitioner, possessing the matriculation qualification, became entered in his service records. Even though, the writ petitioner was, on the strength of the afore entry, entitled to secure an appropriate place in the seniority list, maintained by the respondents, with respect to the category of Class-IV employees, yet the respondent erred in ignoring the afore factum, and, also consequently, erred in including, for the relevant purpose, rather his name in the seniority list of Class-IV employees.
The learned Additional Advocate General had strived that, “to validate the afore flaws, on the ground, that the writ petitioner, belatedly, in 2015, made a challenge to the seniority list, as became drawn earlier thereto. However, the afore argument, cannot succeed, as it was a bounden obligation of the respondents, to revere the entry in the service book of the petitioner, rather displaying his acquiring matriculation qualification, in the year 2003. The effect of overlooking of the afore, had definitely brought the ill-sequel of the rights of the petitioner, to be considered, for promotion, to the next higher post of Clerk, especially in the year 2013, becoming completely jeopardized.”
The writ petition was allowed by court stating that, “The afore prejudice caused to the writ petitioner, is, required to be undone, and, the respondents are directed to, after affording an opportunity to all the interested persons, re-draw the seniority list of Class-IV employees, from the year 2003, and, in case the respondents concerned, comes to a conclusion, that the writ petitioner occupies a place, higher than those persons, who became promoted to the post of Clerk, ensure that against one of such juniors to the writ petitioner becomes appointed as a Clerk, along with all consequential benefits.”
