Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGDISH PRASAD versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jagdish Prasad v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 55331 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 18806 (12 December 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. 32

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55331 of 2004

Jagdish Prasad

Vs.

State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

The petitioner, who is a Class-IV employee in Food & Civil Supplies Department, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote him on the post of Junior Clerk with effect from 3.10.1981, i.e., the date on which, juniors to the petitioner, have been promoted and has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding Regional Food Controller, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur to comply with the direction issued by respondent no. 2 and promote him on the said post.

It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee, i.e,. Kamdar, on 21.3.1973 in Food & Civil Supplies Department, Hapur, Meerut Region, Meerut. In 1981, some persons were promoted as Junior Clerk from Class-IV post under 10% promotion quota meant for Class-IV employees but the petitioner was not given said promotion against which he made several representations. Thereafter, he filed a Claim Petition No. 384 of 1998 before U.P. Public Service Tribunal, which was disposed of by order dated 2.3.1998 directing the respondents to decide his representation dated 18.12.1981 by a speaking order. Consequently, his representation was decided by order dated 9.10.1998 wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner's name is at Sl. No. 59 in the seniority list which was finalized on 31.5.1995 and since even his seniors have not been promoted, his claim for promotion is wholly misconceived. It is also stated that in 1981, some promotions were made from Scheduled Casts candidates and since, the petitioner was not in that category, therefore, there was no occasion of his promotion.

The petitioner, claiming that his representation has not been decided as per the directions of the Tribunal, filed a Contempt Application whereupon notices were issued and, thereafter, the respondent no. 5 passed an order on 25.2.2000 directing the Regional Food Controller, Saharanpur to submit report considering the matter in the light of the departmental rules. It is said that no action has been taken by the authorities pursuant thereto despite the reminders sent by the Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies and in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.

The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that no junior to the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Junior Clerk in Saharanpur division. It is further said that in Saharanpur Division, there are 22 posts of Junior Clerk and against the said sanctioned posts, no vacancy in promotion quota is available. The seniority list was published in Saharanpur Division on 28.11.1998, in which the petitioner is at Sl. No. 17 and since his seniors have not been promoted, there is no question of promotion of petitioner.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

So far as the alleged promotions made in 1981 are concerned, it is evident that the same has never been challenged by the petitioner and he filed Claim Petition also after almost 17 years and the present writ petition has been filed only in 2004. Promotions made in 1981 cannot be allowed to be challenged after such a long time. The petitioner is apparently guilty of undue delay and laches, which has not been explained at all in the writ petition. The right which has already been vested in the persons, who were promoted in 1981, cannot be allowed to be reopened after such a long time. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner, at any point of time, immediately after 1981 or within a reasonable period raised his claim for promotion and, therefore, after such a long time, the said dispute cannot be allowed to be agitated.

So far as the claim of the petitioner for promotion is concerned, it is the specific case of the respondents that there is no vacancy available in the entire division warranting any process for promotion to be initiated in accordance with Rules. This averment has not been shown to be incorrect in the rejoinder affidavit. In this view of the matter, in my view, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage.

The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt. 12.12.2007

PS


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.