(1.) THE matter is at pre -admission notice stage. Despite opportunities respondents coun sel Mr. S.A. Naik, AAG, has not filed objections.
(2.) HEARD . Petitioner claims to have been appointed to the post of Selection Grade Stenographer and thereafter promoted/appointed to the post of Sr. Personal Assistant, General Central Service Group -B in the pay scale of Rs.2000 -3200. His promotion/appointment was initially on proba tion for a period of two years and was posted to Delhi Circle (Annexure -C and D). Petitioner joined the promotional post of Sr. Personal As sistant. However, he received office memo No. 10 -2/92 -SPG dated: 14.09.1994 whereunder he was informed that in terms of the contents of the memo after verification of facts, on receipt of the complaint, his order of promotion seems to have been issued on the basis of incorrect information supplied to the competent author ity by the concerned circle office and that the petitioner was ineligible for consideration to the post of Sr. Persoanl Assistant, as he lacked req uisite length of service in specified grade of Stenographer in terms of the recruitment Rules. Therefore,, before any orders are issued peti tioner was given an opportunity to place his defence against the proposed action before the authority and for the purpose he was given seven days time (annexure -F). The petitioner ag grieved of this letter (Annexure -F) has chal lenged it on various grounds specified in sub -paras of para 8 of the writ petition. It is seen that all the grounds are targetted towards the merits of the memo as if it is a final order of demotion of petitioner from the post of Sr. Persoanl Assistant. Petitioner claims that he fulfill the eligibility criteria and was given se lection grade of the Stenographer on regular appointment under the orders of competent au thority. He fulfilled the prescribed criteria for the post of Sr. Personal Assistant besides merit and suitability. The complaint allegation basis of the show cause notice are unfounded. The show cause notice has been issued without ju risdiction.
(3.) THE petitioners counsel conceeds that the show cause notice (annexure -F) is issued by Director Staff of Ministry of Communication Department of Posts (SPG Section) Govern ment of India, New Delhi and this officer is com petent to issue the show cause notice, but what the counsel complains is that though petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria and other require ments for the post of Senior Personal Assist ant, yet respondents are proposing to demote him.