- (1.) BY means of this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6-12-1989 passed by the Respondent No. 2, the Managing Director of U.P Forest Corporation, Lucknow, rejecting the representation and claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II. Prayers for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant Grade-II in U.P Forest Corporation and grant seniority with all other consequen ­tial benefits with effect from the date the person junior to the petitioner was promoted to the said post have also been made,
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to this petition, as unfolded in the writ petition, are that it was in the year 1977 that the petitioner was appointed as Assis ­tant Grade -III in U.P Forest Corporation. At the time of his appointment there ex ­isted no service regulations, or rules. The service conditions of the ministerial staff of the Corporation used to be governed by the orders of the Managing Director is ­sued from time to time. Under the said orders, the Assistants Grade -III who were graduates and have completed two years of service were entitled to be considered for promotion. The petitioner, who was a graduate and also completed two years of continuous service become entitled to be considered for promotion in the year 1979; but his claim was totally ignored and he was not considered for promotion. Again in the year 1981-82 promotions were made, but the case of the petitioner was not considered although persons junior to him were considered and promoted to the oosts of Assistants Grade -II. In the year 1982 -83 seniority list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 2. Petitioner filed his representation praying for his promotion; but of no consequence. It is alleged that in the year 1985 U.P Forest General Service Regulations were enforced with effect from 1-4-1985, which provided criteria for promotion as ten years continuous service and suitability for the post. It is stated that even on completion of ten years con ­tinuous service petitioner was not con ­sidered for promotion even though juniors to him were promoted. The petitioner filed several representations and reminders claiming promotion but the same were not considered. He, there ­fore, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1989, which was disposed of finally but this Court vide its order dated 18 -1 -1989 with the direction to the Respondent No. 2, the Managing Director to dispose of the representation of the petitioner with in time specified by the court. The Managing Director ultimately by his order dated 6 -12 -89 rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion holding that he was not found suitable for promotion. there after the present petition was filed praying for the reliefs mentioned above. On behalf of the respondents a counter -affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that prior to 1985 service conditions of Class III and IV employees of the Corporation were governed by the orders of the Managing Director, issued from time to time. Reference has been made to the order dated 19-11-77 which provided the criteria for promotion as graduate and two years satisfactory ser ­vice, through a selection committee. It has been asserted that the case of the petitioner was considered whenever the promotions were made; but as he has earned bad entries in his Character Roll, therefore, he was not found suitable, con ­sequently he was not promoted till 1991 but when there was improvement in the working of the petitioner, he was promoted 10 the post of Assistant Grade -II on 16 -2 -1991. It was also stated that in the year 1985 the service regulations referred to above, were enforced in which the criteria for promotion was mentioned as suitability to the post. In brief it has been asserted that petitioner used to be considered but he was not found suitable for promotion as he has earned adverse remarks and the moment there was im ­provement in the working of the petitioner he was given promotion with effect from 16 -2 -1991. Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the service record of the petitioner was unblemished, spotless and no adverse remarks was ever communicated to the petitioner till 1984, therefore, there was no justification for the respondents to rely upon the adverse entries alleged to have been awarded to the petitioner. It has been urged that unless the adverse entries are communicated they cannot be taken into consideration and the petitioner was fully entitled to be considered and promoted to the post of Assistant Grade -II w.e.f. 1980 or 1985 when juniors to him were promoted to next higher post. It was also urged that the order dated 6 -12 -1989, where by representation of the petitioner was rejected was wholly arbitrary as the same did not contain any reason for rejec ­tion of the claim of the petitioner. In sup ­port of his submission learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to and relied upon the Supreme Court decisions in Gur lial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and others, (1979)(3) SCR 518 and M. S. Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1982(1) LIC 619. On the other hand, Sri V K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respon ­dents submitted whenever the promotions were made from the post of Assistant Grade-III to the post of Assistant Grade-II, the case of the petitioner used to be considered, but since he has earned ad ­verse entries, he was not found suitable and fit for promotion and promotion was not given to him. He submitted that the Departmental Promotion Committee was entitled to look into the service record of the petitioner and to decide as to whether the petitioner was suitable for promotion or not. It was urged that, it was in the year 1991 that there was improvement in the working of the petitioner, therefore, w.e.f. 16-2-1991 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II. It was as ­serted that Respondent No. 2 did not com ­mit any error of law or jurisdiction in rejecting the representation made by the petitioner.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record.;