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


Awdhesh Prasad Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 28982 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 9127 (14 May 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).


Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri P.S. Baghel, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no. 4. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 8.5.2006 whereby he has been transferred from one Category ''D' post to another Category ''D' post and by the same order the respondent no. 4-Subhwant Singh has been promoted and transferred from the post of Wasil Waki Nawis to Category ''D' post. By means of an interim order dated 26.5.2006 the impugned order was stayed on the ground that the post of Wasil Waki Nawis was a Category ''A' post and as such according to the U.P. District Offices (Collectorate) Ministerial Service Rules, 1980, a person could be promoted to a Category ''D' post only from Category ''B' and  ''C' posts. Prima-facie finding that the post of Wasil Waki Nawis was a Category ''A' post, the interim order was passed on the ground that the respondent no. 4 could not be promoted from Category ''A' post to Category ''D' post.

The said Rules have been filed alongwith the counter affidavit. The respondent no. 4 is at present posted as Local Bodies Clerk Grade ''I', which is a Category ''B' post. He may have been initially appointed as Ahalmad, which is a Category ''A' post but subsequently on 5.12.1989 (Annexure-C.A.5 to the counter affidavit) he was promoted to Category ''B' post, as such, the ground that the respondent no. 4 was promoted from Category ''A' post to Category ''D' post, does not appear to be correct.

Besides the above ground of challenge to the impugned order, the petitioner has also made an effort to raise the ground that the promotion of the respondent no. 4 itself was wrongly granted to him. No such averment relating to the challenge of his promotion has been taken in the writ petition. It is primarily the ground of the petitioner having been placed in Category ''D' post directly from Category ''A' which has been taken and on perusal of the record, I find that since the petitioner had already been promoted from Category ''A' to Category ''B' post in the year 1989, thus his subsequent promotion from Category ''B' post to Category ''D' and the transfer by means of the impugned order cannot be said to be wrong.

Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity with the order impugned in this writ petition. It is thus dismissed. No order as to costs.





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.