High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Lakhan v. Riucation Director Alld. & Others - WRIT - A No. 27394 of 1999  RD-AH 2564 (8 September 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.27394 of 1999
Education Director and others
Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length.
Learened Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 raised a preliminary objection and stated that since the petitioner had participated in the selection process and has been declared unsuccessful, therefore, he cannot challenge the selection which has been held and rejection of his selection by the respondent no.1 does not appear tobe illegal.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as class IV employee on 14.2.1984 on the post of book lifter in Government Public Library, Company Bagh, Allahabad. In 1988 he was transferred to Kashi Naresh Government Postgraduate College, Gyanpur where he is still working. The petitioner contends that by means of two letters the respondent no.1 directed to the Principals of various institutes
including respondent no.3 to send consent from class IV employees who are eligible for promotion for class III post. The said communication has been filed as Annexure-9 and 10 to the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he gave his consent for being considered for promotion for class III post. A date for typing and interview was fixed and the petitioner participated in the said process of selection. The petitioner has come with the case that since he was book lifter he was entitled tobe promoted to the post of lending assistant and catloger. The petitioner submits that for the aforesaid two posts the requirement of typing is not required and with respect of his contention he has filed photo copy of advertisement( Annexure-5 and 6 to the writ petition) wherein qualifications for the post of lending assistant and cataloger have been prescribed. As such the respondents while holding the selection have illegally made the petitioner sit in the typing test of which he has no knowledge/skill. Consequently his rejection for selection is illegal as typing knowledge/ skill was not required for the promotion to the post of lending assistant and cataloger.
Learned Standing counsel has submitted that on perusal of Annexures-9 and 10 which are letters of the Director of Education ( Higher Education) U.P. indicate that it was a general promotion from class IV to class III employees and it has been stated that promotion did not relate to the posts of lending assistant and cataloger having typing knowledge. He submits that the promotion in pursuance of letter of Director of Education (Annexure-9 and 10) have no relation to the advertisement ( Annexure-5 and 6) in as much as the letter of the Director related to promotion and the Advertisement related to direct recruitment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or produce any document to show that the posts of lending assistant and cataloger were open for promotion. In fact the petitioner has filed the advertisement which shows that the posts of lending assistant and cataloger were to be filled by direct recruitment and therefore, the said posts were not open for promotion. It is his contention that the said advertisement has been filed to show the qualification required for the post of lending assistant and cataloger. In so far as the impugned order dated
15.4.90 ( Annexure-18 to the writ petition) is concerned it indicates that the petitioner did not possess the qualifivcation for being promotoed from class IV toi class III and, therefore, his representation has been rejected.
For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.