Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

on 26.6.2010. Petitioner contended that he was to be considered senior to respondents No.3 and 4, as he was promoted to the post of Process Server on 26.6.2010 from the post of Peon which is feeder post for the purpose of promotion of to the post of Process Server. Petitioner also averred that bare perusal of advertisement issued by the office of learned rt D&SJ, Bilaspur, clearly suggests that employees of Class-IV categories including Peons, Chowkidars and Process Servers, who form a common cadre, were eligible for applying to the post of Clerk and they were to be offered appointment on the basis of seniority. Petitioner further claimed that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Clerk, entire service in Class-IV cadre, whether as Peon or as Process Server, was to be taken into consideration by the competent authority, while deciding seniority under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules in vogue and as such writ respondent No.2 had fallen in grave error, while ignoring the service rendered by him against the post of Peon. However, record nowhere suggests that petitioner disputed the fact that writ respondents No.3 and 4 were directly appointed as Process Servers on 16.7.2005 and 21.12.2005 respectively.

Respondent No.2 has also stated that on promotion as Process Server from category of Peon, the nature of duties of Process Server altogether gets changed because the post of Process Server carries higher responsibilities than the post of Peon. Apart from above, grade pay of the post of Process .

Server is more than that of the post of Peon.

11. Respondent No.2 with a view to substantiate the aforesaid contention also cited example, wherein it has been stated that Process Server has an opportunity/eligibility to of become a Bailiff in the hierarchy of Process Servers, whereas Peon is not eligible for promotion to the post of Bailiff.

22. Before adverting to the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that since petitioner never laid any challenge to the seniority list dated 1.6.2013, showing him at Sr.No.79 in the said seniority list and junior to the present appellants-respondents No.3 and 4, his plea with regard to his being senior to respondents No.3 and 4 cannot be accepted at all and deserves outright rejection. Otherwise also this Court sees no merit in the contention of the petitioner that since he was appointed as Peon (Class-IV) in 2004 and was promoted to the post of Process Server from the post of Peon, which was a feeder category for promotion to the post of Process Server, he was required to be treated as senior to respondents No.3 and 4, who were, admittedly, directly recruited against the post of Process Server in the year 2005. This Court is unable to accept the contention put .

promotion to the post of Process Server joined the separate cadre of Process Servers, he cannot claim seniority over and above respondents No.3 and 4, who were admittedly, appointed directly against the post of Process Server much of ahead of him. Learned Single Judge, while granting the relief to the petitioner, failed to appreciate that at the first instance, rt petitioner got promotion as Process Server from the post of Peon against 50% quota reserved for the category of Peons and is junior most in the category of Process Server, and in case the petitioner is promoted again to the post of Clerk by counting the seniority from the date of his initial appointment as Peon, he would avail the benefit of double promotion at once i.e. for promotion to the post of Process Server and also to the post of Clerk.