- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. The petitioner Nathuni Sharma prays through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India that: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the records and quashing the impugned orders dated 1-3-1995, 10-1-1995 and 29-12-1994 (Annexures-IV and V), order dated 14th September, 1995 (An-nexure-IX) and the censure entry in service record of the petitioner as per order dated 29-9-95 (Annexure-X) respectively passed by the respondents. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respon dents to treat the petitioner as having been duly promoted/appointed on the next higher post of Assistant Engineer from the date when the im mediate Junior to the petitioner was promoted alongwith all consequential benefits including further promotions to all next higher post and the respondent may be also commended to refund forthwith the entire due ar rears/amounts with interest. (iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award costs to this petition to the petitioner.
(2.) WHEN the writ petition was filed before a learned Single Judge Standing Counsel was granted two months to file counter affidavit but by the interim order dated 12-1-96 it was permitted that the petitioner's representation Annexure-6 shall be decided within one month. The said representation has been decided by the respondent's order dated 30-3-1996 a copy of which order has been filed as An- nexure-9 through the amendment applica tion which makes an additional prayer that the order dated 30-3-96 (Annexure-9) may also be quashed. No counter-affidavit has been filed in the writ petition and during the course of hearing opportunity was granted repeatedly to the State but neither any reply to the writ petition nor to the amendment application is forthcoming. As prayed by the learned Counsel for the parties the writ petition was consequently heard on merits and the judgment was reserved. In short the controversy raised through this writ petition is that as if the petitioner is entitled to the promotion post but the respondents have not con sidered the petitioner but have promoted juniors to the petitioner. The petitioner's claim is, which is not disputed, that he was appointed as Junior Engineer in Rural En gineering Services by the State of U. P. on 19-4-1973, was confirmed by an order dated 6-3- 1982 on the said post and on 4-9-1991 selection grade has been awarded to him with effect from 1-1- 1984. Yet, the petitioner was maintained at the level of Junior Engineers but some, who were junior to him in the grade of Junior En gineer, were promoted as Assistant En gineers. It has been further averred that by an order dated 8-7-1993 the petitioner has been awarded gazetted post and, there fore, the petitioner is entitled to the promotion post with effect from the date on which the juniors to him have been promoted. It may be pointed out that this is the third occasion that the petitioner has to come up to this Court. The first one was when the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 18096/94, which was disposed of on 21-4- 1994 by a Division Bench of this Court directing that the petitioner's repre sentation dated 20-8-1993, be decided within three months. Second time the petitioner came through Contempt Peti tion No. 1788/94 because it was alleged that the respondents were not deciding the petitioner's representation. Notice was is sued on the said contempt application but since the respondents decided the repre sentation in the meantime by order dated 1-3-1995; the said contempt petition was dismissed on 21-4-1994. Thereafter the petitioner moved a detailed repre sentation which has now been decided by the order dated 30-3-1996 made a part of the record through the amendment ap plication.
(3.) IN view of what has been stated above, the amendment application is al lowed and the relief and the two para graphs shall be deemed to have been in corporated in the original memorandum of the writ petition. It was vehemently argued by Shri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the representation by the impugned order dated 30-3-1996 is wholly arbitrary and therefore, it is a fit case where this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would issue necessary directions. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court U. P. S. E. B. v. Kharak Singh, 1990 Supreme Court Case (L&s) 597 and D. D. A. v. H. C. Khurana, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1488. Reliance has also been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in J. P. Srivastava v. State of U. P. , 1996 (2) E. S. C. 568.;