DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri S.K.Kalia learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri D.K.Upadhayay learned Chief Standing Counsel.
(2.) CONTROVERSY in question seems to be an instance where for one or other reason State Government had deprived the petitioner to discharge duty as Director Ayurved, though she was selected and appointed in accordance to rules. Government for the reasons best known to it seems not interested to assign the duty to the petitioner for the post of Director Ayurved rather it wants to place a person of its choice as the head of the Department. The petitioner was promoted to officiate on the post of Director Ayurved by order dated 23.9.2005 contained in Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition. It appears that certain adverse entries were given to the petitioner de hors the Rules, which according to Shri S.K.Kalia learned Senior Advocate, was done in order to create obstacle in petitioner' career. In consequence thereof, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 335 (SB) of 2006 in which by an order dated 22.8.2006, contained in Annexure-20 to the writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court had directed to provide opportunity of hearing with regard to entries granted by the respondents. According to petitioner's counsel, in pursuance of the order of this Court, representation was considered and the entries were corrected and thereafter, a selection committee was constituted to select a person for regular promotion and appointment on the post of the Director, Ayurved in accordance with Rules namely, "The Uttar Pradesh State Medical (Ayurvedic and Unani) Services Rules, 1990" (in short, the Rules). The petitioner was selected for the post of Director Ayurved and appointed by the Office Memorandum dated 6.8.2007 as contained in Annexure No.26 to the writ petition.
(3.) IN pursuance of the said order dated 6.8.2007, the petitioner resumed charge of the post of Director of Ayurvedic. However, it appears that the State Government was not in a mood to permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Director, Ayurvedic in spite of the fact that she was selected for the said post. According to petitioner's counsel, with intention to give way to other and divest the petitioner from the post of Director for extraneous reasons, by order dated 23.9.2009, as contained in Annexure No. 28 to the writ petition, the petitioner was suspended.;