- (1.) Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Rajnish Kumar and perused the impugned order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal.
(2.) The Tribunal in the claim petition preferred by the respondent, challenging his supersession on the post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax in the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 15.1.2010, accepted the plea of the respondent that the adverse entry for the year 2001-02 could not have been treated as adverse for considering promotion or crossing of efficiency bar and other service benefits in view of Rule 5 of the U.P. Government Servants (Disposal of Representation against Adverse Annual Confidential Reports & Allied Matters) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1995) and consequently, directed that while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post with effect from the date of promotion of his juniors, the adverse remarks for the year 2001-02 shall not be treated as adverse.
(3.) The sole ground which has been urged by the counsel for the State is that the claim petition itself was highly barred by limitation and, therefore, Tribunal committed manifest error in entertaining such a delayed petition and issuing the aforesaid direction.;