Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) -Heard the petitioner in person and the standing counsel.
(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the office memo dated 21.7.2001, by which the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) has not recommended the petitioner and has recommended 39 other persons for appointment as Assistant (Administration) in various Departments of the University. The petitioner was appointed on 13.2.1985 by the General Selection Committee on the post of U.D.C. The grievance of the petitioner is that since 1985 he has not been promoted on the post of Assistant (Administration), even though he has put in more than 18 years of service. He alleges that vide order dated 31.3.1998 eighty applications were invited for considering the case of promotion of candidates by the D.P.C. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted duly filled up proforma on 4.4.1998. The petitioner submits that the Assistant Registrar (Adminis-tration) had sent letters on 7.6.2001 for test and interview for the post of Assistant (Administration). Assistant Registrar was interested, but the petitioner was not coming in the eligibility criteria alleging mala fides against the Assistant Registrar. He states that on 25.6.2001 another letter was issued in which some juniors, who are having less qualification, were called during the period 3.7.2001 to 5.7.2001 and thereafter a select list was published on 21.7.2001. He states that his name at serial No. 6 of the select list was removed from the list and was substituted by one Liyakat Ali.
(3.) THE other contention of the petitioner is that the persons at serial Nos. 9, 27, 30 and 34 in the select list are having qualification of only P.U.C. for the post of A.F.A. with eight years on probation on the post of U.D.C. which is also given in the proforma annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He further states that the employees at serial Nos. 31 to 38 do not have any experience of five years on the post of U.D.C. He also states that incorrect facts have been given in the counter-affidavit that twelve employees alleged to have been working since 1992. THEy have only experience of three and a half years on the post of U.D.C. Thus, the contention of the petitioner in short is that the persons mentioned at serial Nos. 31 to 39 in the office memo dated 21.7.2001 had not completed five years on the lower post. In so far as the person mentioned at serial No. 9 is concerned, he had passed P.U.C. Examination in 1968. He was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant (Administration).;