Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Suresh Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 23115 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8548 (27 April 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.32

Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 23115 of 2006

Suresh Kumar .....Petitioner


State of U.P. &  others .....Respondents


Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhinav Upadhayaya, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri V.P.Varshney, learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission.

In the instant writ petition the short grievance of the petitioner is that despite his repeated request his seniority has not been determined nor final gradation list of Junior Engineer working in the Irrigation Department is prepared.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on ad hoc basis in the year 1972 and thereafter he was given regular appointment in the year 1978 after regular selection made by the U.P. Public Service Commission. It is submitted that 317 candidates were appointed on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) on the recommendation of the U.P. Public Service Commission and since then the petitioner is continuously working on  the post of Junior Engineer. It is also submitted that the petitioner made a representation on 15.11.2002 to the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow for determination of his seniority but the same has not been disposed of by the Department.

On the other hand, Sri Abhinav Upadhayaya, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents fairly submitted that the matter regarding determination of seniority of the petitioner would be examined and appropriate decision would be taken in accordance with law, expeditiously. He further submits that if the final gradation list of Junior Engineers has not been prepared, the same would be finalized and published in accordance with law expeditiously.

In view of the submissions and also looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this writ petition at this stage with the direction to the Engineer-in-Chief (respondent no.2) to examine the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in respect of determination of seniority and take final decision in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months  from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is further provided that if the respondents have already determined the seniority of the petitioner and the final gradation list has also been published, the same may be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.

With the above direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.