Heard Sri Abhinav Bhattacharya learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The post of Director, Agriculture is stated to have fallen vacant on 31.12.2005 as a result of attaining the age of retirement by one Mr. Anand Kumar Mishra. It appears that writ petition no. 1722(S/B) of 2005 filed at the instance of the petitioner was pending at the relevant point of time and during its pendency, the petitioner had also been promoted on the post of Additional Director, Agriculture and was thus eligible to be considered for higher promotion on the post of Director, Agriculture. The petitioner in the pending case made a prayer for consideration of his candidature for promotion on the post of Director, Agriculture against the vacancy that had fallen vacant on 31.12.2005. This Court passed an order on 18.1.2006, which reads as under :
"Heard Sri P.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manoj Singh for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Additional Director(Agriculture) on 31.12.2005. The State Government has amended the Rules on 24.8.2005. One post of Director Agriculture is lying vacant after the retirement of Mr. Anand Kumar Mishra. The petitioner has alleged that he will attain the age of superannuation on 31.1.2006. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the opposite parties to consider the candidature of the petitioner, along with other eligible persons, for promotion to the post of Director, Agriculture in accordance with the Rules, within ten days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced".
In the light of the order passed by this Court on 18.1.2006, the departmental promotion committee met on 31.1.2006 wherein the petitioner's candidature was considered along with the other eligible candidates. The date of meeting of the selection committee was the last working day of petitioner's service tenure.
The fact of retirement due on 31.1.2006 came to be noticed by the departmental promotion committee with respect to two officers namely Sri Girija Shankar Tiwari(petitioner) and one Sri Girish Kumar. Since both these officers attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2006, therefore, recommendation for appointment based on merit was made in favour of one Jay Prakash Garg. The petitioner in compliance of Court order dated 18.1.2006 was placed in the zone of consideration but he having no service left to render like one Sri Girish Kumar was not recommended for promotion.
The interim order passed by this Court on 18.01.2006 had merely conferred a right of consideration. The right of promotion asserted retrospectively is not supported either under any rule or any binding precedent.
The Court is of the opinion that the prayer made in this writ petition, if granted, would certainly be beyond the scope of law and shall amount to read something which the rules do not contemplate.
The impugned order passed by the competent authority thus does not suffer from any illegality calling for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India.
The writ petition bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 kanhaiya