- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22-4-1997 issued by U. P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahabad whereby respondent No. 3 working as junior clerk has been attached with account section of the Commission.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that aforesaid order dated 22-4-1997 is nothing but an order promoting the respondent No. 3 to the post of junior clerk and has been issued without holding any selection and without finalizing the seniority list of Class-IV employees and that action of the respondent is in violation of this Court's order dated 20-3-1991 passed in the writ petition No. 1409 of 1989, Rajendra Prasad Singh v. U. P. Higher Education Services Commission & Ors. In brief the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Daftari in pay scale Rs. 170-225 (revised to Rs. 315-440 and Rs. 775-1025) vide order dated 20-8-1982, (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis against a temporary post and it is mentioned in the order of appointment that the services of petitioner is liable to be terminated at any time without any prior notice. Subsequently vide order dated 9-4-1984 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the petitioner was regularized on the post of Daftari in the pay scale of Rs. 315-440. The petitioner was also confirmed on the post of Daftari vide order dated 11-8-1992 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) w. e. f. 23-7-1992. So far as the respondent No. 3 is concerned, he was appointed as Orderly/peon on 9-4-1984 (vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and was regularized on the said post w. e. f. 23-7-1992 vide order dated 11-8-1992. Obviously the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 were working in different cadres, i. e. , Daftari and Order/peon. The petitioner alongwith some others approached this Court earlier vide writ petition No. 1409 of 1989 challenging order dated 23-9-1989 whereby some persons arrayed as respondents 2 to 8 to the writ petition were promoted in Class-III posts. The contention of those petitioners was that the promotion has been made without preparing any gradation list and the petitioners are senior to the aforesaid respondents but on account of non-preparation of the seniority list, the petitioners have been ignored for promotion. When the writ petition No. 1409 of 1989 came up before the Court, the respondent No. 1 admitted this fact that the seniority list was not prepared, hence the aforesaid promotion order dated 23-9-1989 was quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 20-3-1991 and direction was issued to the Commission to prepare seniority list and thereafter consider the petitioner and other persons for promotion. It appears that thereafter, respondents prepared a seniority list vide order dated 21-7-1995. This is apparent from Annexure-6 to the writ petition which is a representation made by the petitioner to the Secretary of the Commission on 26-4-1997 wherein he states that the seniority of class-IV has been finally determined on 21-7-1995 but so far as the petitioner's seniority is concerned his position in seniority list has not been communicated. He, therefore, seeks communication of his position in seniority list at the earliest. Now the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 22-4-1997 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) on the ground that the impugned promotion has been given to the respondent No. 3 without preparing any seniority list.
(3.) THE petitioner further contends that without preparing any seniority list of Class-IV employees promotion to the post of junior clerk cannot be made and the impugned order dated 22-4-1997 is bad and also in the teeth of this Court's order dated 20-3-1991 in Writ Petition No. 1409 of 1989. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 belong to different cadres, namely, the petitioner was appointed as Daftari while the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Orderly/peon. There is no occasion for preparing a common seniority list of feeder cadre and therefore, the petitioner's contention to claim seniority qua respondent No. 3 is not correct. It is further submitted by the respondent that there is only one post of Daftari in the Officer of the Commission and since the petitioner holds the said post there is no question of preparing seniority list of Daftari as seniority is a comparative position and pre-supposes more than one person working in the cadre.;