The State High Court has passed orders to cancel the seniority list for the post of Inspector Grade I in the Food and Supplies Department and reissued the seniority list for this post.
Justice Satyen Vaidya, after perusing the facts and records related to the case, found that with the intention of showing the privately made respondent senior to the applicant, he acted contrary to the law and placed him above the applicant in the seniority list.
According to the facts given in the petition, the applicant and the respondent were appointed in the year 1988 on the post of Sub-Inspector by the Food Supply Department.
The post of Sub-Inspector was converted to the post of Inspector Grade 2. The applicant, being senior, was placed before the respondent private Inspector Grade II in the seniority list.
Two channels were kept for promotion from the post of Inspector Grade 2, he could either become Inspector Grade-1 or he could be promoted to the post of Head Analyst. The private respondent opted for promotion to the post of Head Analyst, she got promoted to the post of Ad Analyst on 30th August, 2006.
After serving as Head Analyst for one year, he submitted a report on 6th September, 2007 that he should be promoted to the post of Inspector Grade-1. The department accepted his report and promoted him to the rank of Inspector Grade I on April 9, 2008.
Orders were passed to place the private respondent above the applicant in the seniority list and treat him as Inspector Grade I with effect from January 10, 2007 and push the applicant back in the seniority list as the applicant was promoted after January 10, 2007.
The State High Court made it clear that when the privately held respondent had opted for promotion to the post of Head Analyst, he could not have been promoted to the post of Inspector Grade 1.
Finding the department’s decision wrong, along with giving proper place in the seniority list to the applicant, orders have been passed to give all service benefits.
Hearing adjourned till 30
The hearing on the petition challenging the election of MLA Randhir Sharma from Srinayanadevi ji assembly constituency was adjourned till December 30.
Due to the absence of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, the matter was listed for hearing before Justice Sushil Kukreja. The court ordered the matter to be listed before the concerned bench without issuing any notice.
It is notable that former MLA and Congress candidate Ram Lal Thakur challenged the election of Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Randhir Sharma, who won by 171 votes in the counting of votes related to the election of Srinayanadevi ji assembly constituency, by filing a petition in the High Court.
Ram Lal Thakur has alleged rigging in the counting of postal ballot papers during the counting of votes. He has alleged rigging during the counting of postal ballot papers.
