S.C. Verma, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary to Government, Home Department, the Inspector General of Police-cum-Director General of Police. Uttar Pradesh. the Inspector General of Police. U. P. Police, Head Quarter, Allahabad, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range, Lucknow and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Range. Gorakhpur, challenging the order of U. P. Public Services Tribunal dated 3.6.1986 by which the remark entry against the Opposite Party No. 1 in List II of 1980 was quashed with retrospective effect and the order cancelling the name of the Opposite Party No. 1 from the List II of 1980 was also quashed with retrospective effect. The U. P. Public Services Tribunal had directed the department to consider the case of respondent No. 1 for promotion from the date the candidate at Sl. No. 43 of List II of 1980 was promoted as Inspector and to pay the salary and allowances to which he would become entitled.
(2.) The opposite party No. 1 was a confirmed Sub-Inspector of Police. The Opposite Party No. 1 was awarded a misconduct entry in the year 1977 but it was alleged that the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karmik) wrongly set aside the entry and recommended his case for consideration in the list of Sub-Inspectors approved for officiating ad hoc promotion to the post of Inspector and to be placed in List II. A revision was filed against the order quashing the misconduct entry before the Inspector General of Police on 17.10.1978. The opposite party No. 1 was called for interview by the Selection Committee on 10.10.1979. It came to the notice of the Selection Committee that a case under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act and two departmental actions under Para 478A of the Police Regulations were pending against the Opposite party No. 1. The Selection Committee placed the opposite party No. 1 in the Select List of candidates at Sl. No. 42 and in the remark column there was an entry "Subject to Clearance in enquiry".
(3.) The opposite party No. 1 filed Claim Petition No. 333/F/V/83 as the opposite party No. 1 was not promoted despite the fact that he was exonerated in the case under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. The opposite party No. 1 has further alleged in the claim petition that according to the Government Order, no departmental enquiry was pending against him and there were only preliminary enquiries, hence the promotion of the opposite party No. 1 could not be withheld. During the pendency of the aforesaid claim petition, the name of the opposite party No. 1 was removed from the List-II prepared in the year 1980, hence the opposite party No. 1 filed another Claim Petition No. 189 (F)/V/1984 challenging the order cancelling the name from the List-II on the ground that in view of the Government Orders, the entry in the remark column in List-II was illegal and the authorities had no jurisdiction to delete the name.;