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


Bheem Raj Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 351 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 266 (5 January 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).


Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 351 of 2007

Bheem Raj Yadav


State of U.P and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J

Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 06.07.2006 and 21.07.2006 by means of which promotion which was accorded to the petitioner from the post of Class IV employee to the post of Junior Clerk has been cancelled.

Brief background of the case is that on 22.04.2006 communication was issued for undertaking exercise for according promotion from Class IV employee to Class III employee. It has been contended that on 03.05.2006 notice was issued for undertaking selection proceedings for the purposes of according promotion. Petitioner has contended that he appeared in the selection proceedings held on 09.05.2006 and was declared successful and he was relieved for joining on the promotional post. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29278 of 2006 (Prabhakar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been filed. On presentation of the writ petition this Court stayed the promotional order. Thereafter authorities in their wisdom incompliance of the order passed by this Court reverted back the petitioner to his original post and thereafter inquiry was made qua the selection proceedings undertaken and then finding has been returned that entire selection proceedings lack transparency and as such promotion accorded has been cancelled and directives have been issued for fresh process of selection proceeding in respect of according promotion. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that selection proceedings undertaken on the earlier occasion was strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity whatsoever in the same as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that valid reasons have been indicated for canceling the promotion which has been illegally accorded as such no interference is warranted and as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, impugned order dated 21.07.2006 has been perused. Impugned order in question reflects that pursuant to letter dated 22.04.2006, class IV employees, who were working in the office of Mukya Pasu Chikitsa Adhikari, of District Azamgarh, Mau and Ballia and were eligible for consideration for promotion, qua them concerned authorities were asked for sending their names by 29.04.2006. It has also been mentioned therein that any application sent thereafter shall not be entertained. Pursuant to said letter dated 22.04.2006, Mukya Pasu Chikitsa Adhikari, Azamgarh, Mau and Ballia vide letters dated 28.09.2006, 27.04.2006 and 25.04.2006 respectively had sent the list of respective class IV employees. Director has recorded categorical finding of fact that in the notice dated 22.04.2006  it was mentioned that after 29.04.2006 no further application shall be entertained. Director has also recorded finding to the effect that when no applications were to be invited by the respondents and the selection has been limited only qua the incumbents whose name has been forwarded, then this is totally factually incorrect recital of fact,  and the fact of the matter is that no applications were invited. Categorical finding of fact has been returned that no applications whatsoever have been invited and without maintaining any transparency promotion have been accorded. Director has issued categorical order to undertake fresh promotional exercise after maintaining transparency in accordance with law. No where in the entire body of writ petition, this fact has been disputed that eligible persons had never been left out, and no opportunity had been provided to them.

Consequently in view of said categorical finding of fact mentioned, writ petition lacks substance and same is dismissed.

Dated : 5th January, 2007



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.