M.C. Agarwal, J: - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the orders dated 18.8.93 (Annexures 15 and 16 to the writ petition) by which the promotion of the petitioner to Class III Posts of Office Assistants and Booking Clerks has been cancelled. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit has been exchanged and the writ petition was finally heard and is finally disposed at the admission stage under the rules of the Court.
(2.) The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as peons on 22.9.1978 and 2.8.1978 respectively. The petitioner No. 3 was appointed as water boy. The date of his appointment has not been mentioned in the writ petition. The petitioner No. 4 was appointed as water boy on 28.9.1978. The case of the petitioners is that they were qualified to be promoted to Class III Post of Office Assistant Grade II/Booking Clerk. Under the rules applicable in U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation (Respondent No. 1), 15% of Class III posts are to be filled by promotion from Class IV employees. The case of the petitioners is that on 9.10.1986, respondent No. 4, the Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. sought permission to promote the eligible Class IV employees to Class III and the respondent No. 3 i.e., General Manager, personnel, U.P.S.R.T.C. granted the permission vide Annexure-4. Thereafter the respondent No. 4 invited applications and an examination was held on 11.8.1987 and the result was declared on 17.11.1987 declaring amongst them the present petitioners to have qualified for promotion to Class III post. Although the result was declared the petitioners were not promoted to Class III post. The respondent No. 4 ultimately cancelled the selection list dated 17.11.1987 by an order dated 19.1.1990. The petitioners 1 and 2 then filed a writ petition No. 7578(A) of 1990 in this Court seeking to quash the order dated 19.1.1990. It is alleged that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent No. 4 after consulting the higher authorities and after seeking legal advice came to the conclusion that the petitioners are legally entitled to be appointed and promoted to the posts of Booking Clerk/Office Assistant and passed an order dated 23.4.1993 (Annexure-9) promoting petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and one Daya Ram Kushwaha to Class III posts. "Similarly another order dated 18.5.1993 (Annexure-10) was passed by respondent No. 4 promoting Usman Ali Petitioner No. 3, Luxmi Narain, petitioner No. 4 and one S.N. Agnihotri to Class III posts. In pursuance of these orders, the petitioners 1 and 2 joined the higher post on 23.4.1993 and the petitioners 3 and 4 on 19.5.1993. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 passed orders dated 16.8.1993, cancelling the aforesaid promotion of the petitioners. It is alleged that the work and conduct of the petitioners has been satisfactory and they are entitled to be promoted to Class III post and the order cancelling the promotion is illegal because no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, no reasons have been recorded in the order for revoking the promotion on the posts to which the petitioners were promoted, and that the posts are still vacant.
(3.) On behalf of the respondents, it has been alleged in the counter-affidavit that the promotions of the petitioners to Class III posts were made illegally in violation of Regulation 20 of the U.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (other than Officers) Services Rules, 1981 which provided that the selection for recruitment by promotion shall be made by a selection committee of at least three members constituted by the appointing authority. The list prepared by the selection committee shall remain alive for one year from the date of finalisation or till the next selection whichever is earlier. According to the respondents, the list dated 17.11.1987 was not prepared in accordance with Rule 22 of the said Rules and it has already expired and has been cancelled. It is further alleged that the State Government had imposed a ban on all recruitment's and the promotions in question were made in violation of the Government orders. It is alleged that no selection committee was constituted by the appointing authority in accordance with rules. It is further alleged that there were several persons senior to the petitioners who were not considered for promotion by the then Regional Manager who promoted the petitioners illegally and against whom an enquiry has been instituted. It is further alleged that the petitioners have statutory right to appeal under Rule 69 of the aforesaid Rules. In the rejoinder-affidavit, it is alleged that the selection list dated 17.11.1987 was duly prepared in accordance with the rules and the selection committee was duly constituted.;