- (1.) R. K. Agrawal, J. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Jai Prakash, seeks the following reliefs: " (i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 5-11-2001 (Annexures No. 12 and 13 to this petition) passed by respondent No. 1. (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to fix the seniority of the petitioner above Faiyyaz Ahmad and below Sri R. D. Sonkar in the seniority list treating his date of promotion to be 1-7-1996. (iii) any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. (iv) award cost of the petition to the petitioner. " Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Routine Grade Clerk in the office of the Chief Inspector, Government Offices, U. P. , Lucknow, with effect from 1-7-1976. He belongs to the Scheduled Caste. As per the provisions contained in the U. P. Office Inspection Service Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), 15% of the total number of the posts of Inspectors are to be filled up by way of promotion from the permanent employees who had put in more than 20 years of service in the clerical cadre. 3 posts of Inspectors were available on 1-7-1996. ACCORDING to the petitioner, these posts were to be filled up by way of promotion. As the petitioner had completed 20 years of continuous service as Routine Grade Clerk on 1-7-1996, he staked his claim, by making a representation on 2-7-1996, for being considered for promotion on the post of the Inspector. The promotion was to be made in consultation with the U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission" ). The Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department I, Lucknow, vide letter dated 8-10-1996, asked the Secretary of the Commission, respondent No. 10, to arrange for holding of a meeting of the Selection Committee for considering the cases of promotion. No action was taken in the matter. The petitioner sent a reminder to the respondent No. 1 on 19-12-1996. The Commission made certain query from the State Government, which was replied by the Chief Inspector, Government Offices, U. P. , Allahabad, vide letter dated 20-11-1996. Instead of considering the case of the petitioner for promotion, the respondent No. 1 proceeded to fill up, by way of direct recruitment, certain other vacancies of Inspectors which were already there in the Department to which the petitioner got an objection filed on 2-8-1997 through his union. No heed was paid to the request made by the petitioner. The Commission interviewed the candidates for appointment on the post of the Inspectors by way of direct recruitment in August, 1997 and made the recommendations. The State Government issued an order on 29-8-1998 appointing 10 persons as Inspector directly and sending them for six months training. They were required to submit their joining on or before 30-9-1998. Thereafter the matter relating to promotion was considered and vide order dated 2-12-1998, the petitioner and two other persons were promoted on the post of the Inspector. A tentative seniority list was issued on 19-10-2001. Objections were invited. The petitioner filed his objections on 24-10-2001. The respondent No. 1, vide order dated 5-11-2001, had rejected the objection preferred by the petitioner and, vide order of the same date, had finalised the seniority list. It may be mentioned here that while rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 has held that the petitioner has been appointed/promoted against the vacancy for the year 1996-97 and there was no question of his being promoted in respect of the vacancies of the earlier years. Some time is taken by the Commission for considering the promotion. Further, the direct recruits have been selected and appointed in respect of the vacancies for the recruitment years 1989-90 to 1995-96 and, therefore, these direct recruits have rightly been placed above the petitioner in the seniority list. The petitioner is aggrieved by finalisation of the seniority list as, according to him, he was entitled to be granted promotion to the post of the Inspector with effect from 1-7-1996 and the action of the respondent No. 1 in granting him promotion from 2-12-1998 was totally illegal and arbitrary and, therefore, his seniority ought to have been fixed taking the date of promotion and joining on the post of the Inspector on 1-7-1996. In the counter-affidavit filed by S. D. Padalia, Chief Inspector of Government Officers, U. P. , Allahabad, on behalf of the respondent No. 1, it has been stated that the requisition for 12 posts of the Inspector of Government Offices by direct recruitment was sent to the Secretary of the Commission, vide letter dated 15-4-1996, whereas the requisition for selection by promotion was sent vide letter dated 8-10- 1996 and 15-10-1998. The recommendations of the Commission in respect of 12 posts of direct recruits were received by the State Government on 14-10-1997 and the appointment letters were issued on 29- 8-1998, whereas the recommendations in respect of the selection by promotion were sent to the State Government by the Commission vide letter dated 18-11-1998 and appointment letters were issued on 2- 12-1998. The petitioner had been selected against the vacancies of the recruitment year 1996-97 and not of any prior recruitment year and, therefore, he can be placed in the seniority list in respect of selection made against the vacancies of that recruitment year only. Writing letter by the Secretary of the State Government to the Secretary of the Commission, on the basis of the so-called representation dated 2-7-1996, has been denied. The seniority list, as finalised, has been defended. In the counter-affidavit filed by Radhey Lal, Section Officer, U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad, on behalf of the respondent No. 10, it has been stated that the Selection Committee for making promotion to the post of Inspector, Government Offices, for the recruitment years 1995-96 to 1997-98 made recommendations on 24-10-1998 and the petitioner was found suitable for one vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidate in the recruitment year 1996-97. The recommendation was sent on 18-11-1998 whereas the Commission had interviewed the candidates for the post in question for making selection by way of direct recruitment and sent its recommendations of selected candidates vide letter dated 7-10-1997.
(3.) IN the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner he has stated that when the vacancies for the year 1996-97 was available, the Commission ought not to have taken such a long time in considering the matter of promotion and the State Government ought to have granted promotion to the petitioner retrospectively with effect from the date he became eligible and entitled. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of inaction on the part of the respondents. We have heard Sri G. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.;