Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8642 of 2018 Petitioner :- Madan Lal Bharati And 56 And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manisha Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. Shri B.P. Singh appears for second and third respondent.
The petitioners are before this Court for a direction to the respondent to decide petitioners' representation/ objection dated 28.2.2018 and for a direction to the respondents not to make any type of interference in their peaceful functioning in their respective posts till the final decision is taken on their said pending representation.
Learned counsel for the respondents at the very outset has raised objection that the petitioners are infact assailing the demotion order. The aforesaid order has been passed in compliance of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors., 2012 (Law Suit (SC) 245, whereby Hon'ble the Supreme Court has struck down Rule 3 (7) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Servants (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (Act of 1994) and Rule 8A of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 (Rules of 1991). Learned Standing Counsel further apprises to the Court that Hon'ble the Apex Court while considering the contempt application arising out of the judgment in main case has passed an order on 13.10.2015, whereby it had restrained all the Courts from entertaining the matter relating to reservation and as such it is contended that after the said order no petition was maintainable before this Court. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while deciding batch of cases wherein vires of Rule 3 (7) of the Act of 1994 was under challenge, has struck down the said rule. The contempt petitions were filed before the Supreme Court with the grievance that the State Government is not complying with the said judgment as the persons who were promoted by giving benefit of reservation provided under Rule 3 (7) of the Act had not been demoted. From the order passed by the Apex Court in contempt application on 13.10.2015 it is evident that on that date an affidavit was filed before it on behalf of State of U.P. and in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 it is stated as under:-
"4. That, following the said order dated 15.9.2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the present case, Government Orders dated 16.9.2015 and 22.9.2015 were issued by the Principal Secretary (Karmik) & the Chief Secretary respectively, directing all concerned government functionaries in the State to ensure that all reversions are completed in the State within the stipulated time frame, in terms of Government Order dated 21.8.2015, which has already been placed on record in this Hon'ble Court in the affidavit filed by the deponent on 14.9.2015.
5. That, pursuant to the exercise aforestated, and in full compliance of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 27.4.2012 in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar & Others (2012 7 SCC 1, CP(C) 214/13 and following the order passed in the instant Contempt Petition by this Hon'ble Court from time to time, a total of 15226 (111514+3712) employees in Groups A, B and C in various departments and organizations of the State Government, have been reverted.
A copy of the Chart containing the numbers of the reverted employees in various departments and organizations, along with summary thereof, is filed herewith as Annexure A-1).
6. That, it is thus manifest from the details of all reversions effected in the State, as contained in the said chart, that the directions contained the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. case (supra), have been fully complied with. The entire exercise in this regard by the State Government has been completed in terms of the said Government Order dated 21.8.2015.
It is further stated that in the event any employee is aggrieved by an issue relating to his reversion, or in case of any grievance that a particular employee ought to have been reverted, following the judgment by this Hon'ble Court, such representations/complaints are proposed to be decided on top priority by the State Government."
From the perusal of aforesaid order, it is ample clear that in case a person is aggrieved by the order of reversion or in case of any grievance that a person ought to have been reverted, the issue would be decided by the State Government. The order of the Supreme Court further provides that after decision is taken by the State Government, a person aggrieved thereby, will have to challenge the same by filing an interlocutory application before the Court in the disposed of Civil Appeal no. 2608 of 2011 and connected appeals. While giving such liberty, the Supreme Court has further provided that no other court shall entertain the challenge to the grievance of any person raised in this regard. Meaning thereby that where the State Government has taken a decision demoting a person or declining to demote a person, the challenge to such order would only be raised before the Supreme Court and before no other court.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the matter under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 SP/