Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Respondent No.2 further contended that on the promotion of the petitioner as Process Server, he was junior in this category because the seniority lists of the Process Servers and Peons were prepared separately by treating them separate Unit in the cadre. Respondent No.2 further submitted that for the promotion to the post of Clerk from amongst the Class-IV employees against 25% quota, the petitioner was not liable to be treated as senior most Class-IV official. Respondent No.2 also claimed that as per seniority list of Class-III and Class-IV officials of the Civil and Sessions Division prepared on 1.6.2013, the petitioner has been shown at Sr.No.79 in the seniority list and in the category of Process Server he is junior to 21 Process Servers including writ respondents No.3 and 4 as such he was rightly denied promotion to the post of Clerk. Respondent No.2 also averred that petitioner despite being fully aware of the seniority above, never laid any challenge to the seniority list, wherein .

observed that maintaining of separate seniority list for Process Servers and Peons has no effect on the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner and an incumbent, irrespective of the fact whether he served as Peon or as of Process Server or holding any other post in Class-IV cadre, his entire continuous service has to be taken into

16. rt consideration for determining seniority as Class-IV official.

argued that seniority list was prepared by the Civil & Sessions Division, Bilaspur on 1.6.2013 showing petitioner junior to respondent No.3 but no challenge, whatsoever, was ever laid to the seniority list by the petitioner. As such at this of stage, he cannot be allowed to state that he ought to be treated above respondents No.3 and 4 in the seniority list.

18. the R&P rt Mr.Pathak also made this Court to travel through Rules, 2012 annexed with the petition to substantiate his plea that writ petitioner could not have claimed promotion alone on the strength of length of service in Class-IV category because bare perusal of the advertisement suggests that the promotion to the post of Clerk was to be made on the basis of selection/promotion from amongst Class-IV Officials, working in the Civil & Sessions Division, Bilaspur, having minimum of three years service as on 1.6.2013. It is forcefully contended on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 that the learned Single Judge has fallen in to grave error while ignoring the fact that respondents No.3 and 4 were appointed as Process Servers directly in the year 2005, whereas petitioner was promoted as Process Server on 26.10.2010 and as such he was rightly placed below respondents No.3 and 4 in the seniority list drawn on 1.6.2013 by the Civil & Sessions Division, Bilaspur.

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 .