High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Manohar Ram Arya v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - A No. 824 of 2000  RD-AH 7105 (18 April 2007)
Court No. 10
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 824 Of 2000.
Manohar Ram .........Petitioner.
State of U.P. and others ........Respondents.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Petitioner by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote him on the post of Forest Ranger from the date his juniors were promoted.
The petitioner was appointed as Vanwid/Razilipik on 22nd June, 1977 in the Forest Department and was promoted to the post of Deputy Van Ranger on 9th June, 1995. The seniority list of Deputy Forest Ranger was published by the respondents showing the name of the petitioner at serial no. 528. It is said that in August/September, 1997 certain Deputy Forest Ranger who were junior to the petitioner were promoted but petitioner was denied promotion against which he made representations dated 23rd October, 1997, 1st September, 1998, 3rd November, 1998 and 15th April, 1999 but nothing has been done and therefore, he has filed this writ petition.
Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 have filed their counter affidavit stating therein that promotion to the post of Forest Ranger is made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission. Since departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner therefore, he was not promoted and one post was left vacant till completion of departmental proceedings. Ultimately since petitioner was punished by order dated 19/20.5.1999 whereby he was censured and order of recovery of Rs. 11,660.40/- was issued against him, hence he was not promoted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after completion of inquiry, respondents ought to have considered and promoted him. However, from the averments made in the counter affidavit which have not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit it is evident that he was considered but ultimately not promoted due to punishment awarded to him. The petitioner has sought to challenge the punishment order itself in rejoinder affidavit stating that the punishment was awarded illegally. The order of punishment is not subject matter of the writ petition and therefore allegations made in the rejoinder affidavit cannot be entertained. It is evident from the record that the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger but on account of punishment order passed against him, he was not promoted ultimately. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India Versus Janki Raman reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 has held that selection of government servant is liable to be kept in sealed cover during the pendency of disciplinary inquiry and in case ultimately he is punished denial of promotion by the employer is justified.
In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.