M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of respondent No. 1 dated 22-10-1986, contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. He seeks quashment of this order, inter alia, on the grounds that the said order is totally illegal and suffers from error apparent on the face of the record because the said order has ignored the claim of the petitioner on the ex-cadre post of Accountant and Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) and is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The impugned order is said to be based on no evidence and is perverse. The impugned order is passed without application of mind. Irrelevant materials and extraneous considerations have been taken into consideration by the respondent No. 1 while passing the said order. The result is that the petitioner has been denied equality before law. The said order is said to be against the principles of natural justice. To appreciate the dispute, which is to be determined in this writ petition, it is necessary to bring out certain facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner is said to have been appointed as a Junior clerk in the year 1962. He was confirmed as Junior clerk on 15-5-1971. Prior to his confirmation he seems to have been appointed as Stenographer in 1971 on ad hoc basis and was sent on deputation with the special officer Electricity to Government, Lucknow with effect from 6-1-1976 to 31-7-1979. He is said to have been confirmed as Stenographer with effect from 1-8-1975. He was eligible to the post of Accountant. He had the requisite qualification for the said post being graduate in Commerce (B. Com) with Advanced Accountancy, Statistics, Auditing and Commercial law. In 1973 Service Rules were framed, which envisaged four categories posts which included general clerical post of Assistant Superintendent, Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk besides stenographer. There was an ex-cadre post of Accountant since long in the pay scale of Assistant Accountant i. e. Rs. 200-425. in respect of Post of Accountant no rules were framed in 1973. 1973 Rules govern general clerical posts.
(3.) It is averred that in the year 1979 a vacancy on the post of Accountant was created due to the promotion of the incumbent of that post. The petitioner is said to have applied for the said post vide his application dated 20-7-1979. The petitioner was not selected and instead one Zafrul Islam was selected on the said post in violation of the rules. Thereafter anew post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) was sanctioned and created sometime in the year 1979 as an ex-cadre post in the pay scale of Accountant i. e. Rs. 300-500. This post had not existed before nor was it contemplated by the Service Rules of 1973. Rule 5 (3) of the Service Rules provides for filling up the post of Assistant Superintendent (general post) by promoting a permanent Senior Clerk having the requisite length of service. The post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) was clearly an ex-cadre post and was not included in the categories mentioned in the Service Rules. The respondents are said to have ignored the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the said post and one Mr. A.W. Siddiqui was promoted to the said post. The promotion of Mr. Siddiqui is also said to be illegal. The petitioner submits that the said Mr. Siddiqui was Senior clerk and he could be promoted against the post of Assistant Superintendent (general) and not on the post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts). The petitioner made a representation on 31-12-1977 against the said promotion. The petitioner's case is that as a result of his representation the State Government issued a Government Order on 17-5-1980 laying down the criteria and qualification for filling up the post of Accountant and Assistant Superintendent (Accounts). The qualification of seniority among the qualified candidates was to be considered if he had a degree with Commerce, Economics, Statistics or Math's together with experience in Accounts work of the Inspectorate. Unfit among the candidates could be rejected. However, this Government order did not tamper with the promotion of Zafarul Islam and A.W. Siddiqui. In respect of the petitioner's entitlement it laid down the criteria for promotion against the post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) in future. The petitioner challenges the said Government order as being bad and also the promotion of Zafrul Islam and A.W. Siddiqui as being illegal but this Court cannot take cognisance of the challenge to the said Government Order or to the promotion of Sri Zafrul Islam or Sri A.W. Siddiqui because they are not party to the writ petition nor are they before the Court. This plea seems to have been raised in the writ petition to narrate the background as to how the petitioner has been persistently suffering injustice at the hands of the respondents.;