Mandamus to Decide Representation on Promotion Parity and Seniority Claims of Regularized Employees.

The twelve petitioners were initially appointed as Class-IV employees (Peons) on a temporary basis and were subsequently regularized on September 8, 2008, under the State Government’s policy dated March 5, 2008

The petitioners claimed that despite completing the requisite service period and becoming eligible for promotion to Assistant Grade-III, they were overlooked while their juniors were promoted

An initial representation was submitted through their union to the respondent authorities, but no decision was taken

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking to quash the promotion order dated October 17, 2025, and the gradation list dated February 10, 2025

1. Whether the respondent authorities failed to consider the petitioners' eligibility for promotion to Assistant Grade-III in preference to their juniors

2. Whether the petitioners are required to submit representations in an individual capacity rather than through a union for the consideration of service benefits

The court primarily applied the principles of administrative law regarding the consideration of representations for service benefits and promotions

It relied on the procedural requirement that individual grievances regarding promotion and seniority should ideally be raised through individual representations to the competent authority, in this case, the District Education Officer

The court did not delve into the merits of the promotion order or the gradation list. Instead, it focused on the procedural lapse identified by the State counsel, who argued that service-related representations for promotion should be submitted in an individual capacity rather than through a union

The court found that because the petitioners’ grievances had not yet been formally processed or decided upon by the competent authority in an individual capacity, it was premature to adjudicate on the validity of the promotion orders

Consequently, the court determined that the most appropriate remedy at this stage was to direct the petitioners to approach the District Education Officer with fresh, comprehensive, and individual representations

It permitted the petitioners to submit fresh individual representations to Respondent No. 3 (District Education Officer) within a reasonable timeframe and directed the concerned authority to consider and decide upon said representations in accordance with the law within three months of receipt