Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM KER SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Ker Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 6354 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 3705 (29 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Reserved in Court No.22

                                                                             Delivered in Court No. 26    

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6354 of 1997

Ram Ker Singh

versus

State of U.P. and others

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitoner on the post of Tehsildar w.e.f. 17.2.1994 with all consequential benefits from the date when the junior persons to the petitoner have been given promotion on the post of Tehsildar and further for directing the Board of Revenue to promote the petitioner w.e.f. 17.2.1994.

The facts arising out of the writ petition are that the petitioner was selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission in the year 1981-82 batch on the post of Bhulekh Nirikshak (Land Revenue Inspector). After completing the training he was given appointment on the said post on 14.4.1983. The petitoner along with other similarly situated persons were given promotion on the post of Sahayak Bhulekh Adhkari on 20.3.1991. In the seniority list the name of the petitioner found place at Sl. No. 52 and the name of one Subedar Singh at Sl. No. 54. A seniority list of Sahayak Bhulekh Adhikari was prepared on 24.11.1993 in which the name of the petitioner found place at Sl. No. 204 and the name of other persons was placed at Sl. No. 205 207, 209, 210 and 219. Copy of the said list has been filed asAnnexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit. The seniority list of Sahayak Bhulekh Adhikari (Sadar Qanungo) was prepared on 20.10.1993 for the purpose of consideration of promotion and the name of the petitioner was found  at Sl. no.55 and name of Subedar Singh at Sl. No. 56. The petitioner is senior to Subedar Singh, Rajendra Prasad and Virendra Kumar Gupta on the promotional post of Sahayak Bhulekh Adhikari. The junior persons to the petitioner have been given promotion on the post of Tehsildar by the order-dated 17.2.1994 excluding the petitioner. The list showing the names of junior persons who have been given promotion on the post of Tehsildar have been filed by the petitoner as Annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit and the names of Subedar Singh as well as Rajendra Prasad found place at Sl. No. 12 and 13 of the said list. When the petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid promotion on the post of Tehsildar, he submitted a representation by giving complete details that the petitioner has been discriminated for the promotion to the post of Tehsildar and the junior persons to the petitioner have been given promotion, the District Magistrate on 11.3.1994 recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Tehsildar stating therein that the petitioner's services remained always excellent and five persons junior to the petitioner have already been given promotion on the post of Tehsildar as such the petitioner may also be considered for promotion.

It has also been submitted and brought on record by way of filing a supplementary affidavit by the petitioner that on 18.8.1997 certain junior persons to the petitioner have been given promotion on the post of Deputy Collector. The names of Subedar Singh and Vijai Bahadur find place in the said list at Sl. No. 27 and 28 respectively. When nothing was heard on the basis of the representation filed on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court claiming the promotion on the post of Tehsildar since 17.2.1994 by which date the junior persons to the petitoner have been given promotion on the post of Tehsildar and for other consequential benefits which is available to the petitioner.

Notices were issued and a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and in para 6 of the said counter affidavit it has been stated that according to Service Regulations of 1966, the employees who were working on the posts of Sadar Qanungo and Naib Tehsildar all are eligible for promotion to the post of Tehsildar who has completed 5 years of service. As the petitoner has not completed five years of service and the junior persons to the petitioner who were working on the post of Sadar Qanungo, Naib Tehsildar have completed five years of service, therefore, the petitioner was not promoted. It has also been stated that the petitioner in the year 1997-98 has been promoted on the post of Tehsildar by an order of the Board of Revenue dated 18.7.1998. In para 11 of the counter affidavit it has also been stated that the junior persons to the petitioner who are working on the post of Assistant Bhulekh Adhikari and on the post of Naib Tehsildar, those who have completed five years of service, have been given promotion on the post of Tehsildar. As subsequently, the petitioner has been given promotion, therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected.

On the other hand the petitioner submits that on the query made by the Court the respondents were directed to file a supplementary counter affidvit and a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on 5.8.2005 and a stand has been taken that according to Rule 6 of the U.P. Subordinate Revenue Executive (Tehsildar) Services Rules 1966, the junior persons to the petitioner has completed five years of services on the post of Bhulekh Adhikari or equivalent post substantively or officiating, they have been given promotion on the post of Tehsildar. As the petitioner was having only 4 years 8 months 6 days service, as such the petitioner was not given promotion on the post of Tehsildar. A chart to that effect has also been mentioned regarding consideration of the promotion on the post of Tehsildar. The petitioners submit that if the contention of the respondents  is accepted, then the petitoner is entitled to be promoted on the post of Tehsildar in the month of july 1994 but the petitioner has been discriminated when junior persons to the petitoner were given promotion. It has further been argued on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 6, which was amended on 11.8.1990, cannot be a ground to discriminate the petitioner while junior persons to the petitioner have been promoted on the post of Tehsildar. Rule 6 was incorporated on 11.8.1990. It talks about 5 years substantive or officiating, obviously it will be applicable after its enforcement. As the junior persons to the petitioner have been given promotion on 17.2.1994 obviously the consideration should have been made in the month of July 1993 ad on the date of consideration the eligibility of the petitioner was 4 years 8 months and 6 days. When the order was passed, the petitioner must have completed 5 years of service as required for the purpose of promotion. On the other hand it has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even assuming without admitting this fact if the case of the respondents is otherwise accepted, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Tehsildar either from 31.12.1993 or on 1.7.1994 but not later than that. But the petitioner has been given promotion on the post of Tehsildar in the year 1998.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record. The supplementary counter affidavit, which has been filed on behalf of the respondents states regarding the rule of 1990 which states that a person has to complete 5 years of service either on substantive post or officiating, then only he can be considered. As the petitioner has not completed 5 years of service either on the substantive post or officiating as Sahayak Bhulekh Adhikari and other persons have completed 5 years , therefore, the junior persons to the petitioner have been given promotion and according to Rule 6 of the Service Regulation 66, the petitioner was not eligible on the date of consideration. From the record, it is also clear that by order dated 20.3.91 the list of Bhulekh Nirikshak, Naib Tehsildar and Registrar Qanungo who were working has been promoted on the post of Assistant Bhulekh Adhikari and the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No.52 of the said list and the name of Subedar Singh is at Sl. No.54 and in the list dated 17.2.1994 by which certain junior persons to the petitioner have been given promotion on the post of Tehsildar the name of the petitioner does not find place. It is also clear from the record that the case of the petitioner has been recommended by the District Magistrate in the month of March 1994 stating there that junior persons to the petitioner have been given promotion on the post of Tehsildar and by virtue of the promotion on the post of Naib Tehsildar, the junior persons to the petitioner have also been promoted to the post of Deputy Collector.

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties as well as Rule 6 of the Regulation. Rule 6 clearly states that a person has to complete 5 years of service either on the substantive post of on officiating capacity. In any view of the matter according to the respondents also on the date of consideration for the purpose of promotion to the post of Tehsildar, the petitioner has completed 4 years 8 months and 6 days meaning thereby immediately after 4 months, the petitoner has completed 5 years of service, therefore, he was entitled for consideration for promotion on the post of Tehsildar according to rules but the respondents have given promotion to the petitioner on the post of Tehsildar on 18.7.98. It has not been clearly stated by the respondents that after 1994 when the junior persons to the petitioner have been given promotion up to 1998 there was no vacancy of Tehsildar and during this period i.e. 4 years, no person have been promoted because in the counter affidavit it has been mentioned that in the selection year 1997-98 the petitioner was considered and as such has been given promotion on the post of Tehsildar on 18.7.1998. If the Criteria for consideration was only completion of 5 years and service either on substantive or officiating, then as the petitioner has completed 5 years of service in the month of July 1994, as such the petitoner was legally entitled to be considered and promoted immediately after the completion of 5 years on the post of Assistant Land Record Officer. But the respondents have not come with a case that from 1994 to 1998 there was no vacancy and nobody has been given promotion on the post of Tehsildar according to rules.

In view of the aforesaid fact and on the basis of the relevant record, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted on the post of Tehsildar immediately after completion of 5 years of service in the month of July 1994 but the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner and the petitioner has actually been promoted in the year 1998.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no.3 to consider the case of the petitioner according to rule 6 of the U.P. Subordinate Revenue Executive (Tehsildar) Service Rules 1966 if the petitioner is otherwise entitled, he will be deemed to be promoted on the post of Tehsildar from the month of July 1994 If the Respondents come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted according to rule from 1994 then an order to this effect be passed by the respondents to treat the petitioner on the post of Tehsildar from July 1994 and in that case the petitoner will also be entitled for other consequential benefits including the promotion to higher post. The aforesaid exercise regarding consideration of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Tehsildar shall be completed by the respondents preferably within 3 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the respondent no.3.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

Sept. 29, 2005

V.Sri/-


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.