Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15536 of 2018 Petitioner :- Laxman Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyaveer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner is aggrieved by an order of reversion passed against him in compliance of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others: (2012) 7 SCC, 1. A representation made by the petitioner against the reversion order in terms of the opportunity contemplated under the order of the Apex Court has also been rejected. Petitioner had challenged the order by filing a petition under Article 32 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, being Writ Petition (Civil) No.650 of 2018, which has been dismissed with the observation that it would be open for the petitioner to take remedy, in accordance with law. It is thereafter that the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's promotion was not an accelerated promotion in terms of Rule 3(7), and therefore, his reversion is bad in law.
The petition is opposed by learned Standing Counsel.
A perusal of the record would go to show that a finding has been returned, while rejecting petitioner's representation, that petitioner's promotion was an accelerated promotion. It is recorded in the order that petitioner was placed at serial no.14, and by ignoring the claim of persons above him in the select list, petitioner was granted promotion. This precise reason is recorded in the order to return a finding that petitioner's promotion was not on its due turn.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to challenge the finding by contending that the persons from serial nos.1 to 12 (excluding serial no.6) had either voluntarily refused to accept benefit of promotion, or their cases were not considered for other reasons. It is also stated that person placed at serial no.6 was promoted.
The finding contained in the order appears to have substance, inasmuch as there is no justification as to why the authority concerned would extend benefit of promotion to persons placed at serial nos.13 and 14, by ignoring the claim of 11 other persons, who were placed higher in the list drawn for effecting promotion. Petitioner has otherwise not impleaded the persons who were placed at serial nos.1 to 12 (excluding serial no.6), and therefore, facts otherwise in that regard cannot be ascertained. No interference, therefore, is called for.
Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of this writ petition, authorities shall ensure that petitioner's claim for promotion, as per his standing in the seniority list, according to his date of appointment, would be considered, in accordance with law, as and when a fresh exercise is undertaken.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Anil