Judgment:
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
1. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.09.2007 vide Memo No. 1256 issued under the signatures of Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-6) whereby the petitioner's representation has been rejected. A further prayer has been made to issue a direction to the Respondents to consider the petitioner's case for his appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise by promotion after giving relaxation in age in terms of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Subodh Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. as also in terms of the ratio decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jharkhand Justice Forum v. State of Jharkhand (2003) 4 JLJR 793.
2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Excise Clerk in the year 1991 under the Respondent State. For the purpose of promotion to the higher post of Sub-Inspector of Excise, a Rule has been framed under which 75% vacancies was to be filled up by direct recruitment and 25% by promotion. The upper age limit was fixed up to 25 years for appointment by direct recruitment and 35 years for appointment by promotion. Subsequently the upper age limit for the direct recruitment was enhanced up to 35 years in the General Category and for those in the category of SC and ST up to 40 years.
A departmental examination was to be held on 26.05.2007 for the selection of candidates to be appointed on the higher post by promotion.
The petitioner, considering himself to be eligible, had also submitted his candidature and had also appeared at the examination and he was declared successful by publication of the result dated 12.06.2007. However, on the plea that the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit of 35 years, his promotion was denied to him by Annexure-3. Similar denial was made in the case of other candidates also. Such adversely affected candidates filed a writ petition before this Court vide W.P. (S) No. 6346 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2008 (Annexure-8).
Earlier a writ application was filed by some of the candidates before the Patna High Court for a direction to the respondents to enhance the age suitably by a minimum of seven years. A Single Bench of the Patna High Court had allowed the prayer of the petitioners therein for enhancement of the age from 35 to 42 years. However, in the L.P.A. filed by the respondents therein, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Bench vide order dated 09.11.2006 passed in LPA No. 1248 of 2005.
3. The petitioner had filed a representation before the concerned authorities for considering his case for his promotion by relaxation in the upper age limit. That representation was however rejected by the respondent authorities vide Annexure-6.
In the meantime, the writ application filed by one Tripurari Kumar and Mahesh Kumar Das vide W.P. (S) No. 6346 of 2007 was disposed of on 13.02.2008 by a Bench of this Court with a direction to the respondent State to consider the case of the petitioners therein for their appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise after giving relaxation in the upper age limit.
4. It appears from the perusal of the aforesaid order dated 13.02.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6346 of 2007 that pursuant to the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, the petitioners therein namely Tripurari Kumar and Mahesh Kumar Das were also denied promotion on the ground of their having crossed the upper age limit of 35 years.
5. By their counter affidavit, the respondent State had brought the aforesaid matter to the knowledge of the learned Single Bench in W.P. (S) No. 6346 of 2007. After considering all the aspects and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the concerned parties and on relying upon the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Jharkhand Justice Forum (Supra) and in the case of Subodh Kumar Jha (Supra), the learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ application with the aforesaid direction to the respondent State to reconsider the cases of the petitioners therein for their promotion by relaxation of the upper age limit.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the respondent State had conceded the grant of promotion to the applicants therein namely Tripurari Kumar and Mahesh Kumar Das, by giving them the benefit of relaxation of age.
7. The petitioner being prompted, had filed his representation once again before the concerned authorities of the respondents demanding the same benefit and privilege in the matter of his promotion to the higher post. This representation, according to the petitioner, has not been disposed of as yet. Learned Counsel refers in this context to Annexure-10 which is the copy of his representation dated 22.02.2008.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State. Learned Counsel for the respondents has tried to explain that the petitioner's original representation could not be allowed in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 1248 of 2005. Learned Counsel further concedes that in the light of the orders passed in the case of Tripurari Kumar and Mahesh Kumar Das vide W.P. (S) No. 6346 of 2007 the cases of two of the officers similarly situated as the petitioner, have been considered and they have been given promotion by making relaxation in their upper age limit and the petitioner's representation is yet to be disposed of.
9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file a copy of the representations made by him before the concerned authorities along with a copy of this order and within three months from the date of receipt of the copies of the representations, the concerned respondent namely Respondent No. 2, shall dispose of the same by considering as to whether the same benefits as extended to the other officers namely Tripurari Kumar and Mahesh Kumar Das could be given to the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order and shall also communicate the same effectively to the petitioner.
10. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the respondent State.