M.Katju - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Clerk in 1952 and since then he has been continuing in serviice He was confirmed on 1-7-1965 as is evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition where his name is at serial No 9. One Kanhaiya Lal who wis at serial No 26 in the same list was appointed on 1-5-1956 and was confirmed on 1-4-1962. THE petitioner's grievance is that he has been treated junior to Kanhaiya Lal because Kanhaiya Lal was confirmed earlier to the petitioner although the petitioner's initial appointment was earlier. In view of the decision of the Hoa'ble Supreme Court in the case of O. P. Garg v State of U.P., AIR 1991 SC 1202 the legal position is that the date of initial appointment should be taken into consideration for the purposes of calculating seniority, and not the date of confirmation la fact, in O. P. Garg's case (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court struck down the rule regarding the; Judicial Officers of U. P. which had provided that for calculating seniority the date of confirmation will not be taken into account. Hence, the petitioner's grievance is justified
(2.) IT has been stated in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that the District Magistrate, Ghazipur has sent a list of five persons including Kanhaiya Lal to the selection committee for appointment as Office superintendent but the name of the petitioner was not sent as he was regarded. junior to Kanhaiya Lal and others who are confirmed before him I am also informed that Kanhaiya Lal has been appointed as office Superintendent. In view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in O. P. Garg's case (supra), I direct the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi to reconsider the matter regarding promotion to the post of office superintendent after issuing notice to both the petitioner as well as Kanhaiya Lal and then decide the matter in accordance with law within a month of production of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions the writ petition is disposed of finally.;