PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion with all consequential benefits as A.S.I. with effect from the date his juniors and similarly placed persons have been promoted.
(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, are that the petitioner joined in the Central Industrial Security Force in the year 1973 at B.C.C.L., Dhanbad on the post of Constable. After rendering more than 8 years of service, the post of the petitioner as Constable has been confirmed on 01.01.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner was given promotion to the post of the Lance Naik in the year 1988 vide Annexure-3 to the writ application. Again in course of time, the petitioner was promoted to the post of the Naik. The promotion of the petitioner to the post of the Naik has been effected after consideration of the representation of the petitioner. It has been averred in the writ application that several batchmates of the petitioner, namely, Mr. Wakil Yadav, Mr. P.S. Bhagat, and Mr. A.N. Singh have been promoted to the higher post ignoring the claim of the petitioner. In this regard, a representation has been submitted by the petitioner to the respondents-authorities vide Annexures-7 to the writ application. Another representation has also been submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-8 to the writ application. The representation submitted by the petitioner fell on the deaf ears of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the inaction of respondents, the petitioner left with no other efficacious and alternative remedy has been constrained to knock the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing, has referred to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein, it has been stated that during pendency of the writ application, the petitioner has been promoted on the post of the Assistant Sub-Inspector on 16.12.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the promotion of the petitioner to the aforesaid post has been delayed and his promotion ought to have been effected from the date on which his juniors have been given promotion. Learned counsel further submits that though the petitioner has retired on 31.01.2013, his case for promotion ought to have been considered for promotion to the rank of the Sub Inspector.;