High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shiv Bahadur Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 31657 of 2007  RD-AH 12863 (25 July 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31657 of 2007
Shiv Bahadur Singh & others .............................................. Petitioners
State of Uttar Pradesh & others ............................... Respondents
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. D. Tripathi appearing for the respondents No. 4. Sri P.D. Tripathi after obtaining instructions has submitted that the petitioners were already promoted by the order dated 18.11.2006. Copy of order dated 18.11.2006 has also been placed before the Court for perusal. The said order clearly indicates that all the petitioners were promoted on the post of Head Master Primary Institution in the pay scale of Rs. 5500/- 9000/- showing the name of institution in column no. 5 where they were placed. Sri P.D. Tripathi further submitted that the petitioners had already been promoted but they having not joined they have not been called to appear for counselling for promotion which has now been undertaken in pursuance of the order dated 6.7.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the circular of the Secretary U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad dated 13.2.2007 contended that the petitioners were not given inter district transfer hence they did not join. Circular dated 13.2.2007 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition which is on the subject of forwarding of the transfer application for inter district transfer. The said circular is not relevant since the petitioners' case is not that of inter district transfer rather they have come up in this writ petition praying for quashing the publication of the notice dated 6.7.2007 by which counselling has been started for promotion and further a mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion in accordance with their seniority. Petitioners' case in the writ petition is that they were appointed in the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 but in the counselling the teachers who have been appointed from 1999 have been called and the petitioners have not been called for counselling. The petitioners in the writ petition no where have stated that they were promoted earlier in pursuance of which they did not join.
In view of the facts which have been brought by Sri P.D. Tripathi, it is clear that the petitioners have concealed the facts that they had already been promoted but they did not join. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in paragraph 7 of the writ petition it has been stated that no option has been taken from the petitioners, this cannot be said to contain such declaration that the petitioners had been promoted earlier and they did not join. In this view of the matter the persons appointed in 1999 are being considered for promotion and the petitioners are not entitled to be considered in the promotion exercise initiated vide notice dated 6.7.2007.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.