Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Kamlesh Kumar Yadav vs The Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 October, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10594 of 2021 Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- The State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Yadav,Atipriya Gautam,Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.),Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.3 of 2021.
The present impleadment application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to implead 'Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, 10 Kasturba Ghandi Marg, Civil Lines, Prayagraj' as respondent no.5 in the array of the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection if the impleadment application is allowed.
Consequently, the impleadment application is allowed. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out the necessary impleadment in the array of the parties during the course of the day.
Order on Writ Petition.
Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri B.N. Mishra, learned counsel for newly added respondent no.5.
Petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following main reliefs:-
"i. Issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondent Authorities, to consider the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Paid Inspector/Company Commander to the post of District Commandant Home Guard in pursuance of the Seniority List & Eligibility List dated 19/12/2020, under the provisions of Chapter 5, Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Home Guard Service Rules 1982, from the date their Juniors have been granted promotion, with all consequential benefits.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondent Authorities, to promote the petitioner from the post of Paid Inspector/Company Commander to the post of District Commandant Home Guard in pursuance of the Seniority List & Eligibility List dated 19/12/2020, under the provisions of Chapter 5, Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Home Guard Service Rules 1982, from the date their Juniors have been granted promotion, with all consequential benefits."
The case of the petitioner is that at present he is working as Paid Inspector/Company Commander and claims promotion on the post of District Commandant Home Guard.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority cum merit and juniors to the petitioner had been promoted ignoring the petitioner. Necessary averments in this respect has been made in paragraphs 19 to 22 of the writ petition.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the State has promoted those candidates whose names have been recommended by the U.P. Public Service Commission.
Sri B.N. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.5 on instruction, which is taken on record, submits that petitioner has been denied promotion as he has been awarded adverse entry on 03.04.2012, and under the Government Order, adverse entry for the last ten years is to be taken into account for the purposes promotion.
To the objection of learned counsel for the respondent no.5, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are Government Orders which prescribes that adverse entry of last five years is to be considered and not beyond that.
Be that as it may, the controversy in the present case involves determination of factual issues, and accordingly, in the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that petitioner may be relegated to the respondent no.1-Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Home Guards, Uttar Pradesh Shasan, Homeguard Anubhag, Secretariat, Lucknow to raise his grievances against the denial of promotion by filing a comprehensive representation within a period of two weeks from today. In case, any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.1 shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of two months thereafter.
The writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 29.10.2021 Sattyarth
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Kamlesh Kumar Yadav vs The Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
29 October, 2021
Judges
  • Saral Srivastava
Advocates
  • Vinod Kumar Yadav Atipriya Gautam Vijay Gautam Senior Adv Vinod Kumar Mishra