- (1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner who was initially appointed on 3.4.1991 in temporary capacity was thereafter regularized in service on a class IV post by order dated 24.2.1992. In the year 1996 a departmental examination was held under 15% quota reserved for class IV employees for promotion to Group -C posts and in the process of selection, the petitioner on the basis of being found meritorious was appointed on a class III post by order dated 26.12.1996. The promotion of the petitioner as a class III employee under the aforesaid quota came to be questioned by several other persons belonging to the same grade.
(3.) THE petitioner had previously approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No.5080 of 1999 for seeking some correction in his service book and the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 17.2.1999 in terms of the following order: "Heard and perused the writ petition. The controversy raised herein pertains to the entry as to date of regular appointment as made in the service book of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner was appointed on 3.4.1991 but in the service book the date of this substantive appointment has wrongly been mentioned as 24.2.1992 the question in my opinion, can be better examined by the District Magistrate, Budaun. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner files a representation within 15 days from today, the same shall be disposed of by reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order." Before passing of the above order by this Court on 17.2.1999, as the matter pertaining to the petitioner's promotion on class III post was questioned, an order had already been passed by the Commissioner on 13.11.1998 whereby the petitioner who was found not fulfilling the criteria of five years continuous service as class IV employee had been directed to be reverted. From the order passed by the Commissioner on 13.11.1998 it is noticed that some persons belonging to group D service who were senior to the petitioner had objected to the petitioner's promotion on the ground of being senior to him and more suitable. The objection raised by the affected persons was a material objection and ought to have been considered in the context of relevant service rules.;