- (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs.: (i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 3.9.2002 (as contained in Annexures 5 and 6) passed by respondent No. 3. (ii) To issue any other writ or pass such other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. (iii) To award cost of the writ petition. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the petitioners were Seasonal Parchi Vitarak in Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Saharanpur. They were promoted vide order dated 28.10.1995 on the post of Seasonal Clerk in anticipation of sanction in the meeting of District Cane Service Authority, Saharanpur, on the presumption that the petitioners possess the minimum qualification of high school for the aforesaid post of Seasonal Clerk. Subsequently it came to notice that petitioners were not possessing required minimum qualification of high school for the post of Seasonal Clerk. Consequently, order dated 3.9.2002 (Annexures 5 and 6) were passed cancelling their promotion with immediate effect. These two orders relating to petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 respectively have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were having the educational qualification of "Prathma" which is equivalent to high school and as such the impugned orders cancelling the promotion is fully illegal. He further submits that the impugned orders have been passed without affording any opportunity and thus principles of natural justice has been violated. Referring to the supplementary affidavit filed today, Sri Sharma submits that subsequently in the year 2008, both the petitioners have passed high school examination or equivalent examination. Be that as it may, in the present writ petition this Court is not concerned does not intend to enter into the correctness of the submission whether the petitioners have passed high school in the year 2008 or not. This is for the reason that on the date of consideration of promotion, the petitioners must possess the required qualification. It is undisputed that the petitioners were not possessing the required minimum qualification of high school as on 28.10.1995 when they were mistakenly promoted to the post of Seasonal Clerk.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment dated 20.3.1997 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 135 of 1995 Vishambhar Singh and others v. Cooperative Cane Development Union and others and in the case of Smt. Nirmal Rani v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 1 ESC 187 . On the other hand Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Babu Ram and another v. Deputy Cane Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad and others, 2000 1 UPLBEC 422, which has been followed in the judgment dated 21.2.2013 passed in Writ A No. 48242 of 2002 Anand Kumar and others v. Cane Development Cooperative Society Ltd. Shri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in the case of Vishambhar Singh relied by the petitioner was considered in the case of Babu Ram and it was held that for promotion to the post of Seasonal Clerk, it is mandatory that the employee must possess minimum qualification of high school and "Prathma" is not a recognized certificate.;