O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh. learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sunll Ambwanl, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner Shiv Prasad Srivastav ts working as Lower Division Assistant in the Registry of this Court. A censure entry for not reporting caveat in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10515 of 1997 on 30.5.1997 has been made in his character roll, a copy whereof is Annexure-3. The petitioner made a mercy petition for expunction of the censure entry but the memorial made by him has been rejected on 20.12.1997 as not maintainable. Subsequently on 3.1.1998. the petitioner made another representation praying to reconsider the matter on humanitarian ground and recall the censure entry. It was also rejected on 2.3.1998, Annexure-5. The petitioner appears to have made yet another representation which too has been rejected and the Section Officer concerned communicated the rejection order on 25.9.1998. Annexure-11. Again on 12.8.1999. the petitioner made the representation of consideration of his promotion to the post of Upper Division Assistant ignoring the censure entry, aforesaid. It appears that though the petitioner is within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Upper Division Assistant but the aforesaid censure entry is coming In his way. The old proverb 'fortune favours the brave' Is well demonstrated in the instant petition, which has been instituted by the petitioner when he failed to get redressal of his grievances by the departmental authorities.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was appointed in 1984 as Routine Grade Assistant and even since then, except for the offending censure entry, he has spotlessly clean career graph. He has earned praiseworthy entries, and some of them are of outstanding category. It was urged that in case the petitioner Is by-passed in the matter of promotion on account of the Impugned censure entry, the entire future prospects of a budding employee would be married. It was further urged that the petitioner, who has been rated honest and outstanding official, failed to report the caveat in Civil Misc. Writ No. 10515 of 1997 on account of heavy rush of work.;