- (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a member of the Jharkhand Industries Service and is presently holding the post on deputation as Industries Extension Officer in the District Industry Centre, Dhanad and that when the matter of promotion of 11 persons in general category was placed for consideration before the D.P.C, the D.P.C found only 9 persons eligible to be promoted whereas the case of the promotion of the two persons were kept in sealed cover and thereby the decision was taken to promote only 9 persons whereas the case of the petitioner should have been considered for substituted promotion in terms of resolution no.6227 dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure 4) but the D.P.C did not consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the resolution and hence, the petitioner has moved to this Court for giving direction to the authority to consider the case of the petitioner for substituted promotion in the light of that resolution.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been stated that it is not mandatory on the part of the D.P.C to consider the case of the person who is lower down in the gradation list, in view of the resolution no.6227 dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure 4) as if it is adhered to it will demoralize the persons, who are higher in the gradation list and will create further litigation. The assertion made on behalf of the State does not seem to be in consonance with the policy taken in the matter of substituted promotion as contained in Resolution No.6227 dated 20.11.2008 which speaks that if the case of the person is not considered for promotion in the event of pendency of departmental proceeding or criminal case, then the person lower down in the gradation list be given substituted promotion and that as soon as the persons who had not been given promotion earlier is exonerated of the charge his case of promotion would be considered and the person who has been given substituted promotion would be reverted back and thereby it appears that the purpose for which the said decision was taken by the Government is that the promotional post should not be kept vacant and as such, the stand taken by the State in this respect does not appear to be proper and legal.;