Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARISH CHANDRA JOSHI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Harish Chandra Joshi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 12153 of 1989 [2007] RD-AH 17402 (5 November 2007)

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26719 of 1990

Shambhu Nath Yadav

Versus

Director Local Bodies, State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 20.6.1989 passed by the Deputy Director, Karmchari Rajay Bima Chikitsa Agra reverting the petitioner from the post of clerk to the post of peon.

Brief background of the case is that petitioner had been appointed as peon on temporary basis in the respondents' establishment on 14.7.1981. State Government vide Government Order dated 21.8.1976 had formulated the Scheme providing therein that for channel of promotion from Class IV to Class III, initially quota prescribed for 10%, said quota was extended to 15%. It has been provided therein that State Government while providing to consider the matter of promotion, the Committee would be constituted, which will take examination and will take interview and thereafter based on the same after providing opportunity of hearing to each and every candidates, process of selection would be undertaken for according promotion. In the present case, petitioner had accorded promotion on 26.1.1996, thereafter petitioner had been functioning on the post of clerk and then impugned order in question has been passed reverting the petitioner to his substantive post of peon.

Counter affidavit has been filed and therein categorical plea has been taken that on the date when the promotion has been accorded to the petitioner he had not completed five years service as clerk under the Government Order and it has also been contended that following the procedure has not been adhered to.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and thereafter short counter affidavit has been filed. Thereafter Short rejoinder affidavit has been filed. Along with short rejoinder affidavit, document dated 10.4.2001 has been appended to show that petitioner has been accorded promotion on the post of senior clerk and same was abide by final order to be passed by this Court.

After pleadings mentioned above, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Dr. Akhilesh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case, petitioner had been accorded promotion, then it was wholly unfair on the part of the respondents to have cancelled the order of promotion and direct reversion, and as such impugned order is unsustainable.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that when the promotion had been accorded to the petitioner, therein procedure prescribed has not complied with.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is emerging in the present case is to the effect that petitioner had been performing and discharging his duty since 14.7.1981. On 28.2.1986 petitioner was accorded promotion. Under Government Order dated 31.1.1982 promotion was permissible to an incumbent, who have completed five years of service on the post in question and coupled with this prescribed procedure also to be adhered to like to take examination and to take interview. Annexure-5 of the writ petition clearly reflects that at no point of time any process of selection had been undertaken and on the recommendation made, promotion had been accorded. Once promotion which had been accorded to the petitioner was undertaken without following due procedure prescribed under Government Order dated 31.8.1982 and on the said date petitioner was ineligible, then in that event this order of reversion cannot be faulted.

At last as it has been contended by the petitioner that various juniors have been promoted. In case various juniors have been accorded promotion in accordance with law, then in that event, liberty is given to petitioner to represent the matter along with certified copy of this order within three weeks from today before the authority concerned, who shall considerer the case also in accordance with law, in case juniors have been promoted , then in that event further follow up action be taken accordingly within period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.

Dt. 5.11.2007

T.S. /5.


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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