Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1380 of 2017 Petitioner :- Devendra Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition has been filed challenging a final seniority list drawn by the Department of Sub Inspector (Confidential) dated 03.10.2016. The seniority list is challenged on the ground that though the petitioner had submitted an objection to the tentative seniority list, but the grievance of the petitioner, in that regard, has not been examined.
Perusal of the record would go to show that in the tentative seniority list published by the Department on 05.03.2016, in which were invited against the placing of person in the seniority list. In the tentative seniority list, name of the petitioner finds mention at serial no. 286; while, the respondent no. 5 was placed at serial no. 285.
Petitioner submits that he was appointed prior in point of time and had also joined on 08.05.1992; whereas, respondent no. 5 had joined on 12.05.1992. The objection of the petitioner, apparently, has not been dealt with and in the final seniority list published, name of petitioner has been placed at serial no. 160; whereas, the respondent no. 5 has been placed at serial no. 50. Petitioner submits that no reasons have been assigned for placing the petitioner at serial no. 160 while placing respondent no. 5 at serial no. 50.
While entertaining the writ petition, time was allowed to the learned standing counsel to file a counter affidavit on 04.04.2017. Notices were also issued to respondent no. 5. As per Office report dated 10.05.2017, service of notice upon the respondent no. 5 is liable to be treated as sufficient. However, neither any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 5, nor by the learned standing counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that during the pendency of the writ petition, respondents have issued a fresh seniority list, in which also, grievance of the petitioner has not been taken note of.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that specific objections raised with regard to the petitioner being made junior to respondent no. 5, has not been examined by the competent authority.
Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed, no further time is liable to be allowed to the learned standing counsel for filing a counter affidavit.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the direction upon the respondent no. 3 to accord consideration to petitioner's objection against the final seniority list published on 03.10.2016, by passing a specific reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Needless to say that before passing any such order, an opportunity of hearing would be afforded to respondent no.
5 as well. The authority concerned shall determine the seniority strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Amit Mishra