Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity and correctness of the order dated 22.6.1994 passed by the District Inspector of Schools by which their claims for promotion to Class III employee have been rejected. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are Class IV employees posted at different places under the jurisdiction of Deputy Director Education, Kanpur. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were appointed on 9.9.1976, 20.11.1973, 5.8.1975 and 10.12.1976 respectively. Their terms and conditions of service are governed by Class IV Government Employees Services Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred as the Service Rules). Rule 22 of the Service Rules, 1975 lays down criteria for promotion, which is seniority subject to rejection of unfit.
(3.) A select list for promotion of Class IV employees was prepared and the same was published on 27.1.1983 in accordance with the Rule 22 of the Service Rules, 1975. It is alleged that except the petitioners, even the persons who were juniors to them have been promoted. In this regard petitioner has relied upon Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition. In Annexure-2 Manohar Lal, Sakhi Chandra and Jagjiwan are shown at Sl. Nos. 15, 16 and 19 in the seniority list and they have been given promotion vide order dated 9.10.1991. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that from Annexure-2 it is established that petitioner No. 1 is senior to Manohar Lal, Sakhi Chandra and Jagjiwan as he is at Sl. No. 5 in the seniority list. It is alleged that not only the persons much junior to the petitioners but even those who were not in the select list namely, Hari Narain, Som Nath, Malik Mohammad, Rakesh Pandey and Gopi Ram have also been given promotion to the post of Junior Clerks vide order dated 13.12.1993 which is in contravention of Rule 23 (3) of the Service Rules, 1975. It is alleged that until and unless the select list is exhausted, no outsider can be promoted and vacancies for the post of Assistant Clerk are still existing on which the petitioners can be given promotion as they are fully qualified for the post of Assistant Clerk. It is alleged by the petitioners that they have made representations dated 11.3.1992 and 5.11.1993 but when those representations evoked no response the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. Nil of 1994 claiming promotion as Class III employees. The petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 29.1.1994 directing respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner.;