- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the departmental promotion committee on taking into account the annual confidential report of last five years did not find the petitioner, working on the post of Assistant Director, Central Tasar Research and Training Institute, Ranchi, fit to be promoted and hence, he was not promoted to the post of the Deputy Director in the month of April, 2006 though junior to him was promoted on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee just after six months i.e. in the month of October, 2006, the petitioner was promoted to the post of the Deputy Director considering the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner of the same last five years and as such action of the respondent is tainted with arbitrariness. Learned counsel further submits that if the A.C.Rs. of the last five years were considered to be good for promoting the petitioner to the post of the Deputy Director in the month of October, 2006 then how the same A.C.Rs. for the last five years could be taken to be otherwise at earlier point of time when the junior to the petitioner was promoted. Under that situation, action of the respondents can certainly be said to be discriminatory and arbitrary.
(3.) AS against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondents -Board by referring to Annexure -B annexed with the counter -affidavit submits that A.C.R. of this petitioner never warranted him to be promoted to the post of the Deputy Director and hence he had rightly been refused promotion in the Month of April 2006 but as soon as some posts fell vacant, he was given promotion on ad hoc basis. As such, the petitioner can never be said to have been given regular promotion in the month of October, 2006, and as such, there is no force in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner.;