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


Ram Lakhan v. Riucation Director Alld. & Others - WRIT - A No. 27394 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 2564 (8 September 2005)


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.28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.27394  of 1999

Ram Lakhan


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.




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.