- (1.) Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order dated 17.3.1989 whereunder the Chief Medical Officer, Azamgarh had cancelled the promotion earlier granted to the Petitioner as Clerk under an order dated 14.3.1989.
(2.) Facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: According to the Petitioner he was working as Ward Boy in hospital at Taihar Kushun Deopur, Azamgarh. He made an application for promotion on the post of Clerk which was forwarded to the Joint Director (Child Disease) Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., Lucknow. The Joint Director passed an order requiring the Chief Medical Officer to promote the Petitioner on the post of Clerk. On the strength of the said letter of the Joint Director, an order was passed by the Chief Medical Officer granting promotion to the Petitioner as Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 354-500. The order of promotion specifically records that the same was purely temporary and could be cancelled at any point of time without notice and opportunity of hearing. This appointment offered to the Petitioner has been cancelled within three days of the issuance of the order of promotion to be precise on 17.3.1989 which according to the Petitioner was served upon him on 8.6.1989.
(3.) Counsel for the Petitioner challenging the aforesaid order contended that he was promoted against a substantive vacancy and that that such order of promotion could not have been cancelled without notice and opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, whatever may be the reasons for the same. For the proposition, he has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vishwamitra Yadav v. U.P State Public Service Tribunal, Licknow and Ors., 1998 1 UPLBEC 23, as well as upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge in the case of Ram Jeer Yadav v. Chief Medical Officer, Azamgarh and Ors. passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14933 of 1989 decided on 5.12.2001. The present writ petition is stated to have been connected with the petition of Ram Jeet Yadav. He explains that in view of the aforesaid two judgments, this Court is bound to take the same view and if it disagrees, the only option left is to refer the matter to be considered by the Larger Bench. For the proposition, Counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mahadeolal Kanodia v. The Administrator General of West Bengal, 1960 AIR(SC) 936 and upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shyamu v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2010 8 ADJ 459.;