- (1.) PETITIONERS , in this writ application, who were appointed on the post of Constables in the Excise Department in between January, 1977 to February, 1980, have prayed for an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Memo No. 827 dated 21.6.2007 (Annexure -2), by Which promotion has been given to Respondent Nos. 6 to 22 and further, for a direction upon the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for their appointment on the post of Assistant Sub -Inspector (Excise) by promotion after giving relaxation in their age.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that on the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the services of the petitioners were placed under the State of Jharkhand. The petitioners are matriculates and above and possess the requisite qualifications. The contention of the petitioners is that by virtue of their educational qualifications and longstanding experience with unblemished service records, they were eligible for their promotion to the post of Assistant Sub -Inspector (Excise). The State Government, however, did not undertake any exercise for promotion of the petitioners even during the period of more than six years after bifurcation of the State. A seniority list dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure -1) was notified by the Respondents confirming the position of the petitioners in the Gradation list. Despite the several representations, filed by the petitioners ever since after the date of bifurcation of the State, no action was taken by the Respondents for granting promotion to them. On the contrary, vide .the impugned letter dated 20.6.2007 (Annexure -6), the Respondents have declared that promotion was granted to the private Respondent Nos. 6 to 22, although these Respondents are much below the petitioners in seniority. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order (Annexure -6) as being discriminatory and arbitrary and against the principles of equity and natural justice. The grounds advanced by the petitioners, inter alia, are as follows: - (i) Even though, the services of the petitioners were placed under the State of Jharkhand and there existed several vacancies in between November, 2000 upto June, 2007 but the Respondents authorities deliberately failed to take any steps for promoting the eligible candidates. (ii) Promotion to 15 persons, who had crossed the upper age limit of 50 years, was granted on 25.5.2007, but the petitioners were totally ignored, even though they were also eligible by virtue of the same criteria as applied to the 15 promoted persons. (iii) One of the constables, who was similarly denied promotions as the petitioners, namely, Shyam Nandan Singh, had earlier moved this Court by filing the writ application, W.P.(S) No. 4029 of 2004 and pursuant to the orders passed, therein, the Respondents had granted him promotion by relaxing his age. In view of the directions passed in the aforesaid writ application, the petitioners, whose case stands on similar footing, are also entitled to the same benefit on the ground of equity and justice.
(3.) MR . Anil Kr. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that on account of the inaction of the Respondents to initiate steps for promotion for more than six years, even though as many as 42 vacancies existed during such period, the claim of the petitioners for their promotion, has been. sought to be frustrated on the ground that they have crossed the upper age limit of 50 years. Learned counsel argues that such age criteria cannot be made applicable to the petitioners only when promotion to other candidates could be granted by relaxing their upper age limit. Learned counsel argues further that the plea taken by the Respondents in their counter affidavit that relaxation of age was granted to the 15 constables on account of the fact that they were officiating as A.S.ls. for several years, is a totally unreasonable stand, since the petitioners equally qualify by virtue of their proficiency both in Hindi and in English and their longstanding experience of more than 25 years should also have been counted in their favour. Learned counsel argues further that the Respondents cannot argue that the age bar was not susceptible to relaxation, since such relaxation was resorted to by the Respondents, while granting promotions to 15 other Constables and furthermore, it was only on account of the inaction of. the Respondents authorities to take up the promotions, that the petitioners had crossed the upper age limit of 50 years . ;