'Discriminatory & Callous Approach Not Accepted In Welfare State': Jharkhand HC Quashes Blanket Order Halting Promotions Of Govt Employees

Quashing a blanket order issued by the State against promotion of its employees, the Jharkhand High Court rebuked the State for its discriminatory and callous approach in employing the pick and choose method.

Directing the State to consider the petitioners for promotion forthwith, Justice S.N. Pathak observed,

"The discriminatory and callous approach of the State is not praiseworthy rather it is not accepted in a welfare State. Pick and choose methods adopted by the State is hereby deprecated. On several occasions these cases were adjourned on the ground that the State is going to withdraw blanket order of stay but even after granting several adjournment, no such affidavit was filed which itself is clear and speaks volume about action of the State."

Background

Several petitions were filed against a blanket decision by the State Government of not granting any promotion to the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms, and Rajbhasa Department employees.

The petitions are of two categories- one where the petitioners have cleared the Combined Civil Services Examination 2020, and their promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer and other posts remain due. In the second set of cases, the petitioners seek notification order of promotion to the post of Deputy SP as the Board of Director General of Police has recommended their case to the State for promotion.

Senior Counsel Ajit Kumar argued by the petitioners that despite having long exceeded the minimum period of service required for promotion and the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC], they are not being considered. They also informed the Court that several posts lay vacant, yet promotions are not effectuating.

It was also argued that in the garb of the blanket order against promotion, the State is acting in a pick and choose manner.

It was pointed out that whereas petitioners were denied promotion even after recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, however, 28 Child Development Project Officers were promoted to the post of District Social Welfare Officer or equivalent posts.

Challenging the State action discriminatory, arbitrary, the petitions alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners referred to the Supreme Court decision in H.M. Singh v. Union of India. They argued that promotion is a fundamental right if an incumbent is found fit by the DPC, fulfilling all necessary statutory criteria.

On the other hand, Advocate General Rajiv Ranjan Mishra argued that the State is likely to decide on promotion, withdrawing the blanket order and coming up with an enactment.

It is the State's case that for coming up with an enactment, the State has to undertake a comprehensive and holistic exercise of identifying people under the creamy layer, collecting quantifiable data, etc. They informed the Court that a three-member high-level committee had been constituted in July 2021 for the same.

Findings of the Court

The Court held that the impugned blanket order by the State is out and out illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, cryptic, mechanical, and malafide. It emphasized the contradiction revealed through the counter affidavit filed, which does not reveal any valid grounds for the blanket order.

On the request of the State for more time to come up with an enactment, the Court noted that it would not affect the case of the petitioners when the DPC has already found them fit for promotion.

Discarding the argument of the Advocate General, the Court noted that any future enactment could not take away the right of employees whose case has already been considered and recommended for promotion. Referring to Chairman Railway Board and Ors v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors., it opined that any retrospective operation could not be curtailed right to be considered for promotion.

Further, it noted that the impugned blanket order is devoid of any reasoning and only the counter affidavit that reveals the action of the State. Relying on Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, it noted,

"It is requirement of law that in support of its decision, the authorities are required to assign reasons. In the instant case, no reason has been assigned while passing the impugned order restraining any promotion and withholding the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee."

While quashing the impugned order, it directed the head of the concerned department to grant promotion to the petitioners whose cases were considered by DPP within four weeks from today. It also directed the State to come up with Notification regarding promotion to all such petitioner with all consequential benefits.

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Singh & Ors v. the State of Jharkhand and Other Connected Matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 4

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order