- (1.) 1. Heard Sri Manish Mathur learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Shukla learned standing counsel for State and Sri Rajnish Kumar for U. P. Public Service Commission.
(2.) THE controversy involved in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relates to reckoning of seniority in the Ayurvedic Department of the State Government. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 23.3.1996 in Ras Shastra in Rajkiya Ayurvedic College and Chikitsalaya, Lucknow and since then, he has been working continuously. The State Government notified the Service Rules for the teachers of Uttar Pradesh Ayurvedic Colleges, vide Notification dated 21.12.1990 namely, Uttar Pradesh Ayurvedic Aur Unani Mahavidyalaya Aadhyapako Ki Seva Niyamawali, 1990 (in short Service Rules), contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the opposite parties with regard to promotion, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by preferring Writ Petition No.1136 (S/B) of 2004 which was disposed of finally directing the U.P. Public Service Commission for filling up the post of Reader in the Ayurvedic College. A mandamus was issued by this Court to the U. P. Public Service Commission to make earnest effort to expedite the matter with regard to promotion on the post of Reader within six months. In consequence thereof, the U. P. Public Service Commission sent recommendation to the State Government, vide letter dated 15.6.2005(Annexure No.10 to the writ petition), recommending the names of persons for promotion to the post of Reader. The petitioner's name appears at serial No.6 in the recommendation letter dated 15.6.2005. The U. P. Public Service Commission while sending its recommendation to the State Government, has specifically provided that the recommendation is against the vacancy of the year 2001-2002. The petitioner was recommended for promotion to the post of Reader under the promotees quota on the vacancy arisen on account of retirement of one Dr. Hari Shanker Pandey from 31.7.2001. It has been stated that after receipt of recommendation from the Commission, the State Government has made query from U. P. Public Service Commission. In response to it, the U. P. Public Service Commission again communicated that the petitioner has been promoted against the vacancy arisen on account of retirement of Dr. Hari Shanker Pandey, vide letter dated 10.8.2007 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition). However, in pursuance of the recommendation letter dated 15.6.2005 of the U. P. Public Service Commission, the State Government has issued Office memorandum dated 16.8.2005 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition). In consequence thereof, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Reader. After availing the promotional avenue on the post of Reader, the petitioner raised grievance with regard to seniority in the cadre of Reader and claimed that he is entitled for seniority from the year when the vacancy arisen on account of retirement of Dr. Hari Shanker Pandey i.e., from the year 2001. The Government by the impugned Office memorandum dated 2.1.2008, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, rejected petitioner's claim and observed that the petitioner be entitled for seniority from the date of promotion order.
(3.) IT appears that the petitioner has also approached the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and the Tribunal instead of adjudicating the controversy on merit, by means of judgment and order dated 2.2.2007 contained in Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, directed the State Government to decide petitioner's claim within two months in accordance with law. In consequence thereof, the impugned order dated 2.1.2008, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner.;