- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a senior most Executive Engineer and his next promotional posts are Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer and Engineer -in -Chief respectively, but, no promotion has been given to the petitioner and today his junior is working as Incharge Superintending Engineer. There are total six persons, who are working as Incharge Chief Engineers and no regular promotion has ever been given by the respondent -State and, therefore, the petitioner is loosing chance of promotion and in due course without getting promotion, he may retire or may reach the age of superannuation.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the State is seeking time to file counter affidavit. It is a misfortune of the petitioner that superior posts are not regularly filled up by the respondent -State of Jharkhand. The petitioner is working as Executive Engineer and his next promotional posts are Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer and Engineer -in -Chief. All these posts are occupied by the junior officers as an Incharge Superintending Engineer or as an Incharge Chief Engineer or as an Incharge Engineer -in -Chief. Time and again, this Court has drawn attention of the Chief Secretary of the State by various orders that high ranking posts, which are available as one or two or in a single digit in the State of Jharkhand, must be filled up on a regular basis. Inchargeship or adhocism creates a lot of dissatisfaction amongst those, who are falling within the zone of consideration for getting regular promotion. This type of dissatisfaction also have a direct nexus with the efficiency in performing their public duties. This is one of the reasons of a slow progress of the State. The Chief Secretary, being a highest officer of the State, ought to have kept in mind this aspect of the matter. Previously also, this Court in no less than half a dozen matters pointed out that it is a duty of the State to recruit the high ranking officers on a regular basis. Adhocism increases a kith and kinness or favoritism arbitrariness. Such type of junior officers, who are given inchargeship of the superior posts is nothing, but, a discrimination to the senior most employees in the respective cadre. It appears that the Chief Secretary is not fully aware of this aspect of the matter. I therefore direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand to file an affidavit in this matter, on or before the next date of hearing.
(3.) IN W.P. (S) No. 1866 of 2012 vide order dated 29th June, 2012, this Court has pointed out in detail the case management to be followed by the State. Every now and then, the State of Jharkhand is seeking adjournment. In Clause IV of the National Litigation Policy, floated by the Central Government, it has been observed by the Central Government that time and again the Government counsels are taking adjournments. National Litigation Policy has been followed by the Jharkhand State and they have also published their own State Litigation Policy. A detail case management has been pointed out in W.P. (S) No. 1866 of 2012 vide order dated 29th June, 2012. No care has been taken by the lethargic officers of the State for filing their counter affidavit. In the present writ petition, despite the memo of the writ petition was served to the office of the Advocate General on 29th June, 2012, till today, no counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the State has also pointed out that a letter has been written from the office of the Advocate General on 4th July, 2012 to the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, State of Jharkhand, but, no instruction has been received by them, therefore, they are unable to file any reply. The lethargic officer of the State has created such a situation that every now and then the counsel appearing on behalf of the State, is seeking adjournments. What are the steps to be taken after receiving the memo has been narrated, in detail, in the aforesaid order dated 29th June, 2012.;