DILIP GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Dark Room Assistant in the Health Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. On 24th January, 1997, the Director General, Medical and Health, U.P. Lucknow with reference to the Government Order dated 29th February, 1988 issued a circular whereby it was provided that 25% posts of X-Ray Technicians may be filled up by appointing the Dark Room Assistants after they had completed the training of X-Ray Technician. In the said circular the qualifications for being sent for training as X-Ray Technicians were also specified. The minimum qualifying service for the said purpose was fixed as five years. Under the aforesaid Government Order it was provided that if the selected candidates complete their training of X-Ray Technicians successfully, they shall be appointed against the vacant posts of X-Ray Technicians in the pay-scale of Rs. 1350-2000/-.
(2.) FOR the purposes of selections of suitable Dark Room Assistants for being sent for training of X-Ray Technicians, a selection committee was constituted and the said selection committee found the petitioner to be suitable for being sent for training at Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. A certificate dated 24th March, 2000 has been issued by the State Medical Faculty U.P. that the petitioner has undergone one year prescribed training at the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and has passed the X-Ray Technician examination held in the month of September, 1999 conducted by the U.P. State Medical Faculty. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that in spite of having successfully completed the X-Ray Technician training, he has not been appointed as a X-Ray Technician even though many other successful candidates like the petitioner have been appointed as the X-Ray Technicians by the order dated 28th June, 2001. He, therefore, filed a writ petition in this Court which was disposed of with a direction to the Director to decide the representation filed by the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the order passed by the Director on 12th February, 2007 which has been impugned in the present petition.
(3.) I have heard Sri R.K. Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.;