Government has pervasive control over passing of sanctioned posts: Ranchi High Court
The ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioners cannot be supplemented by way of filing counter affidavit. This judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi at High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the matter of Dr. Tulsi Mahto v. State of Jharkhand [WP No. 6691 of 2019].
The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer in 1984 and he was posted in Pharmacology Department in Darbhanga Medical College, Bihar. The petitioner was given promotion on the post of Assistant Professor and was transferred and posted to RMCH, Ranchi. The petitioner’s claim for promotion on the post of Professor in the FMT Department w.e.f. 31.08.1997 has been rejected on the ground that in the year 1997 there was only one sanctioned post against which one Dr. K.P. Srivastava was working there. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order 31.12.2018 contained in Annexure-8. Further prayer is made for to shift the date of retrospective promotion of the petitioner on the post of Professor FMT from 05.11.2003 to 31.08.1997.
The Hon’ble High Court held that “In view of the admitted position, the said document cannot be doubted and the ground of rejection of claim of the petitioner does not sound good. Accordingly, the part of the impugned order whereby claim of the petitioner has been rejected is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 to consider the case of the petitioner afresh within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order considering that in view of notification dated 27.05.2004, Doctors of different Departments have been provided promotion which has been contended in paragraph nos.17, 18 and 19 of the writ petition and not rebutted by the respondents and there is no reason why the said documents will not apply in the case of the petitioner. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.”
The court relied upon the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 where the court held that “when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.”