- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri A. K. Gaur, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Malviya, the learned standing Counsel of the State of U. P. representing the respondents.
(2.) BY means of instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner urges this Court to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant to her personal promotion to the post of Reader and its scale of pay. Undisputed acts and events constituting facts of the case, as they emerge from the pleadings on record, are these: The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Pharmacy at Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, on ad hoc basis, in the year 1974, and was regularised on February 12, 1986. In the year 1986, the State of Uttar Pradesh issued a Government Order dated June 24, 1986 envisaging grant of personal promotion to Lecturers to various Medical Colleges of the State on fulfilment of conditions specified therein. The principal condition for grant of the promotion was completion of 13 years of satisfactory continuous service. The Government Order dated June 24, 1986, was followed by another Government Order dated October 28, 1986, whereby the incumbents granted the personal promotion of Reader were also granted the designation of Reader.
(3.) THE petitioner completed the requisite 13 years of satisfactory continuous service, a condition precedent for grant of personal promotion to the post and scale of Reader, on February 25, 1987. Despite the fact that the petitioner had completed requisite 13 years of satisfactory continuous service, she was not granted the benefit of personal promotion to the post of Reader and the scale of the pay of the said post. This led her to make a representation on January 24, 1989, which was duly recommended by the Principal of the Medical College. THE representation of the petitioner went unheeded compelling her to approach this Court through instant writ petition. On August 10, 1990, on the request of the learned standing Counsel representing them, the respondents were granted a month's time for filing counter-affidavit but the respondents failed to respond.;