Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. R.K. Sonwane vs State Of Chhattisgarh 72 Wps/1589/2019 ... on 12 March, 2019
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1718 of 2019
Dr. R.K. Sonwane S/o Late C. S. Sonwane Aged About 56 Years Presently
Posted And Working As Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Department
Of Anumal Husbandry, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgon, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Animal
Husbandary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Commissioner-Cum-Director Directorate Of Veterinary Services, Atal
Nagar, Indrawati Bhwan, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 12/03/2019
1. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Joint Director was convened on 03/10/2018 and the recommendation also was made but till date no promotion orders have been issued by the department.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that earlier the promotion orders was not issued on the pretext of pendency of the writ petition before this Court in the case Dr. ChandraKant Pandey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPS No. 7594/2018. The said writ petition stood dismissed by this Court on 15/01/2015. Dismissal of 2 the said writ petition was also put to test before Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 76/2019 and the Writ Appeal also stood dismissed on 06/02/2019.
3. According to the petitioner now that the writ Appeal also having been dismissed nothing further remains for the respondents to hold back the promotion which the petitioner is entitled for and for which the recommendation by the DPC has already been made.
4. State counsel submits that since the writ Appeal has only been recently decided in all probability the case of the petitioner must be under process.
5. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending rather ends of justice would meet if writ petition is disposed off with direction to the respondent No. 1 as well as to respondent No. 2 to expedite the process of promotion to the post of Joint Director from the DPC which was convened as early as on 03/10/2018.It is expected that the authorities would take a decision preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. The writ petition stands accordingly disposed off.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit