Direction to decide promotion claims of regularized employees based on parity with similarly situated persons.

The nine petitioners were originally engaged as daily wage laborers under the respondent department and were subsequently regularized via an order dated 08.09.2008.

They are currently serving as Peons in various Government Middle and Higher Secondary Schools within the Bastar District.

The petitioners alleged that the respondent authorities issued promotion orders on multiple dates between 2015 and 2020, promoting similarly situated regularized employees to the post of Assistant Grade-III, while the petitioners' names were excluded from consideration.

Despite submitting a joint representation and despite internal correspondence from the Directorate of Public Instruction seeking instructions on the matter in 2021, the respondents failed to take action.

The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking a Mandamus to compel the respondents to consider their cases for promotion on par with their peers.

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction compelling the respondent authorities to consider their claims for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III based on the principle of parity with similarly situated employees.

The court proceeded on the administrative law principle of parity in service matters, which requires that similarly situated employees be treated equally regarding promotional avenues.

Furthermore, the court applied the principle of mandamus for administrative consideration, wherein the judiciary directs executive authorities to decide pending representations in an objective and time-bound manner to ensure the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

The court examined the petitioners' contention that they were regularized on the same date as other employees who had since been promoted to Assistant Grade-III.

It noted that the petitioners had already attempted to seek relief through departmental representations and that internal communications between the Deputy Director and the District Education Officer indicated that the matter had been under administrative review since 2021 without resolution.

Rather than adjudicating the eligibility of the petitioners for promotion on merits, the court focused on the procedural lapse of the respondents in failing to decide the petitioners' grievances.

The court determined that the interests of justice would be served by requiring the competent authorities (Respondents No. 3, 4, and 5) to evaluate the petitioners' claims objectively, ensuring that the petitioners are not arbitrarily denied consideration for advancement that was granted to their counterparts.

The court issued a specific direction to said respondents to consider and decide the representations in an objective manner within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt.

No direct order for promotion was granted, as the court left the substantive determination to the departmental authorities.