- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. The three petitioners filed this writ petition under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India against four respondents. Respondent No. 1 was the Administrator City Board, Ghaziabad. The other three respondents were Jagan Lal, Jagdish Prasad and Harishankar Sharma, all posted as Tax Inspectors under the City Board, Ghaziabad. The petitioners prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No. 1 to promote the three petitioners to the post of Tax Inspectors with effect from the dates they were entitled to be promoted. A further prayer was made for a writ of mandamus for directing respondent No. 1 not to allow respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 to work as Tkx Inspectors.
(2.) IT was the case of the petitioners that they were working as bill collectors and tah-bazari moharrir under the City Board, Ghaziabad. The board had published a seniority list on 31-10-80 under which the petitioners were shown as senior to respon dents No. 2 to 4 bearing the case of Jagan Lal who was shown senior to petitioner No. 3 (Bhagirath Singh ). A copy of the seniority list was annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. This seniority list was acted upon and was also confirmed by the High Court in connection with writ petition No. 2137 of 1984 decided on 6-3-84. IT was al leged that respondent No. 2 (Jagan Lal) belonged to revenue cadre and was posted as an Amin but respondents No. 3 and 4 (Jagdish Prasad and Han Shanker Sharma) belonged to ministerial cadre and were posted as store-keeper and L. M. C. clerk respectively. The three petitioners, how ever, belonged to revenue cadre. The post of L. M. C. clerk was subsequently designated as L. T. C. Inspector. The dispute arose on account of alleged arbitrary action of the Administrator, City Board, Ghaziabad, who promoted unqualified juniors to work as Tax Inspectors ignoring the case of the petitioners. Reference was made to a Government Order dated 10-4-50 (An nexure No. 2 ). The petitioners claimed that they were Intermediate passed and under the Government Order were qualified to be promoted as Tax Inspectors while respon dents No. 2,3 and 4 were only High School passed and were not eligible for promotion as Tax Inspector. It was further averred that on a rep resentation by one Jagdish Dutta, the Com missioner of Meerut Division, had decided that Hari Shankar Sharma (respondent No. 4) belonged to ministerial cadre. It was fur ther directed by the Commissioner, so far respondent No. 2 Jagal Lal was concerned, that if he was a junior he should be reverted. A copy of the order was annexed as An nexure No. 3. On 18-2-1985 the Ad ministrator directed that Hari Shankar Sharma should work as a clerk. This order is Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 were working, according to the petitioners, without any legal authority as tax inspectors and the petitioners made representations to the Ad ministrator. But, in spite of passage of long time, no order was passed on the repre sentations. Subsequently on 25-9-86 a notice was given to the Administrator. A copy of the notice is in Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. Through this notice a demand was made to decide the matter of promotion to the post of tax inspectors within a month from the date of notice. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 were called for inter view in 1982 for promotion as tax inspectors but on political pressure the interview was postponed and was never held in spite of repeated requests. It was asserted that the three vacant posts of tax inspector were al ready there. One more post became avail able on the reversion of one Inder Dayal. A further post was expected to be vacant on the retirement of B. S. Goel and that petitioners Ant Ram and Bhagirath Singh were persons of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes respectively and were en titled to promotion against reserved quota as well. A counter-affidavit was filed by Hari Shanker Sharma (respondent No. 4 ). He asserted that he was appointed in the revenue cadre on 21-9-70 as lekhpal which post was also known as L. M. C. clerk. One of the essential condition for appointment against that post was that the applicant should have passed the lekhpal examina tion. Hari Shankar Sharma claimed that he had passed the examination in 1969-70 but the certificate was not made available then. Subsequently he submitted the certificates and a copy thereof was annexed to the counter-affidavit. Papers were filed to show that for provident fund slip his post was shown as that of a lekhpal. Under the order of the Commissioner of Meerut Division, dated 19- 6-78 the post of Projection Inspec tor was named as Tax Inspector. The seniority list relied upon by the petitioners was prepared in the year 1980 covering the revenue employees/moharrirs and bill col lectors who were lower in rank to rank of the lekhpal and as such there was no question of the name of Harishankar Sharma being shown in the list as he was a lekhpal. He claimed by virtue of his initial appointment is revenue cadre which was a superior post in scale and rank was equivalent to the post of inspector, that Hari Shankar Sharma was senior to the three petitioners. The seniority list in question was totally ir relevant to assess the seniority of Hari Shankar Sharma. In the affidavit he described himself as a property inspector of the City Board Ghaziabad. He asserted that he was duly qualified for appointment as tax inspector and he was legally holding of of fice. He asserted further that the minimum qualification for appointment of octroi, tax or other revenue inspector was only a High School certificate. He claimed that he had passed an examination equivalent to Inter mediate examination. He asserted further that the Commissioner had illegally held, upon representation of Jagdish Dutta, that Hari Shankar Sharma belonged to the mini sterial cadre. This finding was without any basis. This deponent preferred a claim peti tion before the Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, against the order of the Commis sioner. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the deponent and set aside the order of the Commissioner. The orders were annexed to the counter-affidavit. This deponent further stated that on his representation and on recommendation by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, the State Government directed that the post of lekhpal clerk in Nagar Palika, Ghaziabad, was to be converted as that of property inspector in the same scale. This deponent claimed that his case was not of a promotion on appointment and he was not covered by the Government order in annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.
(3.) A counter affidavit was filed on be half of Jagan Lal (respondent No. 2 ). He made out a case that petitioners No. 1 and 3 (Ant Ram and Bhagirath) were appointed as bill collectors on 3-3-71 and 12-8-72 respectively. The other petitioner Ram Pal was appointed on 7-7-79 as tahbazari moharnr. The seniority list relied upon by the petitioners was illegal and void. An of ficer- in-charge of the City Board could ex ercise the powers delegated to him by the Administrator. He was never delegated with the power to determine seniority of the employees or to prepare the seniority list. The concerned seniority list was not prepared with the consent of the ad ministrator. Neither any objection nor any suggestion was ever invited. It was never placed in the notice board was never circu lated in the office. Moreover there was error apparent on the face of it. The date of ap pointment was the basis of seniority. This deponent (Jagan Lal) was appointed as Amin vide letter No. 7369 and had joined on 7-7- 69 and he should have been placed above the petitioners according to this date of appointment, in the seniority list. How ever his date of joining of the service was wrongly mentioned. A copy of his appoint ment letter was attached to the counter-af fidavit. The averment in the writ petition that the seniority list was accepted in writ petititon No. 2137 of 1984 by the High Court was not accepted. The deponent as serted that he was not a party to the said writ petition and the decision could not be bind ing on him. The Administrator never accorded sanction to this seniority list. He asserted that not only himself but Jagdish Prasad and Hari Shankar Sharma also belonged to revenue cadre. The respondent No. 1 also sub mitted a counter-affidavit which was sworn by the bill clerk Laxmi Narain. The deponent asserted that respondents No. 2 to 4 were legally working as a tax inspectors. It was stated that the post of tax inspector had been centralised and the appointment and other conditions are governed by the U. P. Palika (Centralise Service) Rules, 1966, Under these Rules the power of appoint ment vested in the State Government. It was further stated that with effect from 6-12-86 the minimum qualification for the post of tax inspector was that the candidate must have passed on B. A. examination from any University. The deponent stated that the petitioner Ant Ram was not entitled to be appointed to the post of tax inspector. The power of appointment lay with the State Government.;