High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Om Prakash Gupta v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secre. Arban D.L.S.B.D. & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 72137 of 2005  RD-AH 6346 (24 November 2005)
Court No. 7
Civil Misc. Writ No. 72137 of 2005
Om Prakash Gupga ... Petitioner
State of U.P. and others ... Respondents
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner was appointed as Secretary of Town Area vide order dated 28.10.1977. He also worked on the post of Executive Officer in different Town Areas and is also working as such at present in Town Area Kaptanganj. Sri Rajiv Ranjan Singh- respondent no. 3 was appointed on the post of Secretary, Town Area Maharajganj in 1986 and has been promoted to the post of Executive Officer of Nagar Palika in 1989 and at present, he working as such in Maharajganj Nagar Palika Parishad.
The petitioner claims that since respondent no. 3 is junior to him, he is entitled to be placed at least at par with him.
Attention of the court has been drawn to Rule 20 of the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Services Rules, 1966, which is as under :-
"Promotion: (1) Principle for the purposes of recruitment by promotion, a selection on the basis of inter se seniority subject to the rejection of unfit shall be made in consultation with the Commission from the lists of all eligible officers of the next lower grade of the same Centralized Service and list of officers fit for promotion shall be prepared in the manner laid down in sub-rules (2) to (11).
It is evident that the promotion for the purpose of Executive Officer is to be through selection on basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit and has to be made in consultation with the Commission, hence the contention of counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to be placed at par with Sri Rajiv Ranjan Singh on the basis of seniority is misconceived.
The controversy involved in this petition requires examination of oral and documentary evidence, it is not a fit case for interference in the writ jurisdiction. If according to the petitioner there is any illegality in selection process and he has not been considered he has alternate and efficacious remedy to assail the order of promotion before the appropriate authority or before the Labour Court as has been held in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., and another Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Employees Union-(2005)6 SCC-725 and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another -(2005)107 FLR-729.
At this stage, counsel for the petitioner prays that the representation of the petitioner dated 14.7.2005, contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition may be directed to be decided by the respondent no. 1 within some time frame.
Counsel for the respondents has no objection to this prayer.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 1 to decide the representation dated 14.7.2005, contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.