- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer by the order dated 18.10.1976 issued by the Director General, Medical and Health, Lucknow and joined at Ballia on 30.10.1976. He obtained M.S. degree in 1985-86. In July, 1997, he was posted as Senior Surgeon and was posted at District Hospital, Deoria. He was, thereafter, posted as Level-3 Medical Officer on 21.2.2003, and served as Consultant Surgeon at Orai-Jalaun vide Office Memo/ order dated 21.2.2003. He has since retired in the year 2010. By office memo dated 20.5.2005 the department informed all the concerned that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Chandra Prakash & Ors. v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No.43 of 1998 decided on 4.12.2002, the criteria for promotion above the post of Joint Director is merit and the appointment/ promotion on the post of Addl. Director/ Director and Director General does not require the basis of seniority. The petitioner was placed in the seniority list dated 5.6.2003 at Sl. No.3625. By a subsequent Government Order dated 5.6.2003 the seniority list was amended in which the name of the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.3625. The petitioner's grievance began from 14.7.2005, when by Office Memo dated 14.7.2005 the Medical Officers, Level-3 were promoted to the post of Joint Director in Level-4 in the pay scale of Rs.14,300-18,300/-. It is alleged that a doctor junior to the petitioner namely Dr. Rajnu Prasad Tiwari at Sl. No.3647 was promoted. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.9.2005, with a reminder on 26.7.2007 without any result. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.1154 (SB) of 2007, which was disposed of on 21.9.2007 for deciding his representation. The petitioner's representation was rejected by the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health on 6.12.2007, on the ground that he was not found eligible by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to the request made by the petitioner under The Right to Information Act, 2005, the ACRs of the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 were made available to him by letter dated 18.1.2006 in which he had received the entires of 'Ati Uttam' (very good) and 'Uttam' (good), which is said to be equivalent to '3' marks and thus the petitioner had '9' marks, which was higher than Dr. Lalita Singh Yadav, Seniority No.3643 and Dr. Shanker Murlidhar Ghuley, Seniority No.3650. The petitioner sent another representation dated 19.8.2009 seeking justice as he had only six months to retire.;