Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Nov 30: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat today allowed the appeal filed by Parshotam Lal and Subash Chander, Deputy Directors RPHQ and ZPHQ with a direction to the official respondents to re-draw the seniority by placing the appellants above Riaz Ahmed Darji as they have passed the Basic Training Course in the first attempt and give consequential promotions according to the seniority to be re-fixed, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
However, this order shall not enable the official respondents to recover any monetary benefits already paid to the Riaz Ahmed Darji pursuant to the seniority already given, the DB further directed.
In the appeal, Parshotam Lal and Subash Chander have challenged the order of Single Judge whereby their claim was rejected on the ground that Riaz Ahmed Darji presently posted as Deputy Director Crime Headquarter has secured 783 marks whereas Parshotam Lal had secured 772 marks and Subash Chander secured 725 marks respectively.
After hearing Advocate Rahul Pant appearing for the appellants whereas AAG WS Nargal appearing for the State and Advocate Vipin Gandotra appearing for the private respondent Riaz Ahmed Darji, DB allowed the appeal with a direction to the official respondents to re-draw the seniority by placing the appellants above the Riaz Ahmed Darji as they have passed the Basic Training Course in the first attempt and give consequential promotions according to the seniority to be re-fixed, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The Division Bench observed, “on perusal of the Rule it is clear that merit in the training course is relevant for fixing seniority. In this case the private respondent could not pass the training course in the first appearance whereas the appellants could pass the same. The private respondent could pass in the second attempt. Hence he cannot be treated as more meritorious than the appellants”.
“The Single Judge has not considered this aspect and upheld the seniority given to the 3rd respondent and consequential benefits if any. The finding is unsustainable”, the DB said.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel