A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) -These five writ petitions raise common questions of law founded on almost similar set of facts in relation to promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar Kanungo/Registrar Kanungo from the post of Lekhpal under the provisions of the U.P. Subordinate Revenue Clerk (Registrar Kanungos and Assistant Registrar Kanungos) Service Rules, 1958 as amended vide notification dated 17.12.1962.
(2.) THE essence of challenge and the prime issue arising out of such a challenge is the determination of the criteria to be adopted for the purpose of promotion as defined in Rule 8 of the aforesaid rules. THE battle lines are drawn between those who claim the predominance of Seniority on one side and merit on the other. The eligibility for being placed in the nomination list for consideration of promotion is prescribed in Rule 7, and for Lekhpals, the rule provides that the post of Assistant Registrar Kanungo shall be filled up by promotion from amongst such candidates who have put in a minimum of six years of service as Lekhpal. Thus the post is a promotional post, not a selection post. Rule 8 provides that the promotion shall be proceeded with on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. The Rule further indicates that the selection committee shall proceed to keep in mind the past services of the candidate, integrity, character and intelligence and competence. The last mentioned criteria also indicates that preference will be given on the basis of educational qualifications and to those whose service records are very good.
(3.) THE selections in dispute relate to three districts of Kushinagar, Deoria and Basti. THE facts are being narrated in relation to the districtwise dispute as raised in these petitions. Kushinagar : Writ Petition No. 53240 of 2007 has been filed by three lekhpals of district Kushinagar alleging that the contesting respondents therein, namely respondents 4 to 10, were junjor to the petitioners and the appointing Authority namely the District Magistrate conducted the selection proceedings contrary to the 1958 Rules as amended in 1962, thereby superseding the petitioners and giving a complete go-bye to the rule of seniority for promoting the said respondents. It is further alleged that the criteria adopted was contrary to the rules and there was no occasion for any comparative assessment of merit and then placing junior candidates higher in merit for granting promotion.;