- (1.) BY the impugned writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari be issued to quash the impugned order dated 22.10.2009 passed on behalf of Government of U.P. as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus be also issued to opposite parties to consider the case of petitioner for promotion for the post of Head Constable (Civil Police) and to allow with all consequential benefits of continuous service and he has also prayed for any suitable direction be issued as the Court may deem fit and proper.
(2.) IN short, the facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 01.04.1992 as constable in 11th Battalion, P.A.C., Sitapur, when he was declared successful in the selection process for the post of constable on the vacancy advertised by the opposite parties; that he was working as Constable in 11th Battalion, P.A.C., and vide order dated 27.10.1995 opposite party no.3 terminated the services of petitioner in accordance with provision of U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules 1975; that aggrieved by the termination order, the petitioner preferred a Claim Petition No.2154 of 1995 (Anardan vs. State of U.P. And Ors.) before the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal; that the Tribunal was pleased to allow the said Claim Petition on 19.03.1998 and quashed the order of termination dated 27.10.1995 passed by opposite party no.3, which is Annexure No.2 to the writ petition; that aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, the State of U.P. preferred a Writ Petition No.1244 (S/B) of 1998 (State of U.P. and another vs. Sri Anardan and another) which has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 05.03.2003 and the order of Tribunal was upheld with slight modification and the order of the High Court dated 05.03.2003 is Annexure No.3 to the writ petition; that the petitioner was reinstated in service in the year 2003 in compliance of the order dated 05.03.2003; that the opposite parties subsequently initiated the process for promotion to the post of Head Constable (Civil Police) in the year 2006; that the petitioner participated in the process of promotion and passed the written examination held on 15.10.2006 and secured 220 marks out of 300 marks and consequently he was called for infantry training and physical training on 13.09.2007 and in that training he was declared successful; that the petitioner along with all other candidates were called for interview held by opposite parties which was held on 06.01.2008, but the petitioner was declared unsuccessful and the other candidates, who were junior to him and secured lessor marks were declared successful.
(3.) ON enquiry, the petitioner came to know that he was not awarded any marks for service during the year 1995 -2003, that is the period during which he was facing the termination order passed against him, but the said order was declared null and void and he was offered all the consequential benefits; that the petitioner preferred a representation dated 09.05.2008 before opposite party no.3 and requested to grant marks during the period w.e.f. 1995 -2003 and accordingly to promote him in accordance with the rules. True copy of the representation dated 09.05.2008 is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. Petitioner's representation was not entertained by opposite party no.3 and petitioner had no remedy except to prefer a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court and the Court has directed vide order dated 17.08.2009 to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order and the writ petition was disposed of in accordance with directions; that in compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17.08.2009, opposite party no.3 decided the representation and passed orders on 22.10.2009 vide Annexure No.1 and dismissed the representation; that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant petition has been preferred.;