Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Irshad Ali - (1.) Heard Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants respondents and Sri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent petitioner.
(2.) Present special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the learned Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 10546 (S/S) of 2019 by which learned Writ Court quashed the order dated 14.03.2018 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) and directed the appellants respondents to consider the candidature of the respondent petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 21.02.2014 and promote him to the post of Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) in the Department of Irrigation w.e.f. 21.02.2014 with all consequential service benefits within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that on 21.02.2014 the juniors of the respondent petitioner have been promoted on the post of Superintending Engineer but the candidature of the petitioner was not considered and, therefore, he filed claim petition before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 19.10.2015 whereby the learned Tribunal quashed the order dated 01.10.2014 and directed the appellants respondents to allow the promotion to the respondent petitioner for the post of Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) with effect from 21.02.2014, the date when juniors of the respondent petitioner were promoted. The aggrieved appellants respondents have challenged the said order by filing of writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.17038 (S/B) of 2016 and the said writ petition was finally disposed of by the learned Writ Court vide order dated 27.03.2019 granting liberty to the respondent petitioner to challenge the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee for which the recruitment year 2013-2014, if he so desires. The relevant portion of the said judgment and order reads as under; "11. In view of the above, we do not find the respondent employee is entitled to the promotion with effect from 21.02.2014 when officials junior to him were given promotion till a challenge is successfully made to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee kept in the sealed cover. 12. At this stage, the counsel for the respondent submits while disposing of the writ petition, a liberty may be given to the respondent to challenge the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee for the vacancy year 2013-14 as the respondent was having required character roll for promotion based on merit. 13. In view of the discussion made above, we find force in the arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for causing interference in the order of the Tribunal for a direction to promote the respondent employee on the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 21.02.2014. Accordingly, order of the Tribunal is set aside with acceptance of the writ petition. 14. The respondent employee is, however, given liberty to challenge the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee for the recruitment year 2013-14, if he so desires and for that, this judgment would not come in his way in any manner." ;