- (1.) Raj Kamal Sonkar is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 7.4.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 59185 of 2008 (Raj Kamal Sonkar Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General) wherein learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition in question.
(2.) Brief factual matrix of the case in hand is that petitioner appellant has been working as an employee of this Court since 19.11.1996 when he joined as Routine Grade Assistant and with the passage of time he has been promoted to the post of Lower Divisional Assistant in December 1999 and was placed on probation. Subsequent to the same, in the year 2005 his claim for confirmation has been considered but candidature of petitioner appellant was not found suitable and net effect of the same was that matter pertaining to petitioner appellant was deferred. Thereafter, once again in the said direction exercise was undertaken for confirmation in October 2007 by a committee constituted by the Registrar General of this Court and at the said point of time as the services of petitioner appellant was not found satisfactory, the matter relating to him was once again deferred. Petitioner appellant feeling aggrieved by the said action preferred representation before the Registrar General and Registrar General in his turn on 15.10.2008 rejected the representation by recording a categorical finding that overall conduct of the petitioner appellant is not satisfactory. The material that has been relied upon by him for forming the said opinion was the warning entry, that has been so issued to the petitioner appellant, on 19.7.2007 based on departmental enquiry. This much is also reflected that thereafter the decision that has been communicated to the petitioner appellant, same has been subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 59185 of 2008. In the writ petition in question petitioner appellant apart from assailing the validity of the said order, has also proceeded to make a prayer that his services in question should be confirmed since December 2000 and he should be accorded promotion w.e.f. 31.8.2007, the date from which his juniors have been promoted, with all consequential benefits.
(3.) This much is also clearly reflected that during the pendency of the writ petition in question before this Court vide order dated 17.4.2009, the services of petitioner appellant has been confirmed on the post of Assistant Review Officer from the date of the order, subject to the decision of the instant writ petition. Petitioner appellant, thereafter, has been promoted as Review Officer vide order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the Registrar General. All these actions, so taken, during the pendency of the writ petition in question, were to abide by the decision to be taken in the writ petition. In the writ petition in question, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and, thereafter, with the consent of the parties writ petition in question has been taken up and finally decided and the said decision as it is against the petitioner appellant, petitioner appellant is before this Court in this intra court appeal preferred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules.;