- (1.) Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner was working as Seenchpal in the department of the respondent no.5 Executive Engineer, Etawah Division, Lower Ganga Canal, Etawah. It appears that for the purpose of promotion from Seenchpal to Seenchpal Paryavekshak a select list dated 02.06.1984 was prepared. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the basis of select list the petitioner along with other Seenchpal have been promoted and allowed to work as Seenchpal Paryavekshak. However, the said select list has been cancelled vide order dated 21.02.1986. The petitioner challenged this order of cancellation dated 21.02.1986 before the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow by a claim petition No.229/F/IV/87. In paragraph 25 of the claim petition the petitioner had contended that the petitioner was promoted but after the cancellation he was reverted while his junior were allowed to be promoted.
(3.) The Tribunal vide order dated 30.01.1996 rejected the claim petition. The Tribunal held that the select list was not prepared in accordance to the rule and, therefore, has been rightly cancelled. The Tribunal observed that the rule provide that the Selection Committee should have been constituted in accordance to the rule, before the preparation of the select list and since the select list was not prepared in accordance to the rule the cancellation order was justified. The Tribunal further observed that in paragraph 25 of the claim petition it has been stated, that the petitioner has been reverted and his junior has been promoted, however, from the counter affidavit/written statement it is clear that the petitioner was also promoted but has been reverted, therefore, it cannot be said that he has been superseded in promotion. The Tribunal further observed that this question cannot be decided because reversal order has not been challenged by the petitioner.;