1. Heard Sri Ankit Pande, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 12.03.20191 by which the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow (respondent no.1) has rejected the representation of the petitioners.
3. Submission of learned Counsel for petitioners is that between 1988 to 1992, petitioners were appointed on the post of Lab Attendant. Later on, the recommendation of the Pay Committee in the year 2008, the nomenclature of the post of Lab Attendant was changed to Junior Lab Assistant. Learned Counsel has further submitted that earlier there was no provision for promotion on the post of Lab Assistant but looking into the difficulty being faced by the Junior Lab Assistant and considering the recommendations made by the Pay Committee, the State Government vide order dated 28.03.2012 took a decision with regard to providing quota for promotion on the post of Lab Assistant from Junior Lab Assistant for those who were having the qualification of Intermediate (Science) along with five years of service on the post of Junior Lab Assistant and training in Forensic Science Lab. Vide orders dated 27.09.2014 and 10.05.2016, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Lab Assistant.
4. It has also been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the State Government while exercising the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India had framed Rules governing the service of the petitioners, namely, U.P. Forensic Science Laboratories Non Gazetted (Technical) Service Rules, 2016. The petitioners have preferred several representations to the concerned authority for promotion to the post of Scientific Assistant as per 2016 Rules after relaxing the criteria which are necessary for the next promotion but nothing has been done by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition No.23279 (SS) of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.08.2018 with a direction to the respondent to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners. In compliance of the order dated 16.08.2018, the respondent no.1 consider the case of the petitioner but without considering the grievance of the petitioners has rejected the representations of the petitioners by the impugned order.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have again submitted that since the promotion of the petitioners was due in pursuance of the Government Order dated 28.03.2012 but inspite of the Government Order dated 28.03.2012, the petitioners were promoted in the year 2014-2016 therefore, the delay caused in promotion is on the part of the State authorities, hence, the petitioners are entitled for relaxation in qualifying service or eligibility criteria. The respondent no.1 while passing the impugned order has not looked into the entire facts and passed the impugned order illegally and arbitrarily. The total strength of Scientific Assistant is 238 and against which only one person is working, which is evident from Annexure-13 to the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 2016, the matter of the petitioners has not been referred to the Karmik Department.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted as per the Rules for promotion from Lab Assistant to the post of Scientific Assistant, the petitioners who are working as Lab Assistant, are required to complete five years of service but they have not completed five years of service on the post of Lab Assistant and therefore, looking to the sensitivity of the work, liability and its severity, the grievance of the petitioners for granting relaxation has been rejected. The completion of five years of service is mandatory for the next promotion but the petitioners have seeking relaxation without any legal right. It is the authority who consider and decide when the benefits of relaxation shall be given to any of the employee for the next promotion. The relaxation clause of the Rule did not create any right to any employee because it is not mandatory in nature.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has further submitted that the order dated 09.01.2018 only provides for making the consideration for proper amendment in service rules thereafter to proceed further. After considering the relevant service rules and government order, the authority has come to the conclusion that it may not be in the interest of the department as well as in the interest of the State to give relaxation in service to the Lab Assistant for promotion to the post of Scientific Assistant as there would be difference in performing the duties of Lab Assistant and Scientific Assistant and if the relaxation is given to the Lab Assistant, no Lab Assistant remains there in the department. As such the representation submitted by the petitioners have been considered and rightly rejected vide order 12.03.2019. The argument which was advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner that only one Scientific Assistant is working on the post of 238 sanctioned post has no force. He has referred the same documents which is relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that presently there are 71 Senior Scientific Assistant and 01 Scientific Assistant are working and their work and responsibility are similar and, therefore, this is no occasion to grant relaxation to the petitioner for promoting them to the post of Scientific Assistant. So far as sending the matter of the petitioners to the Karmik Department is concerned, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that there is sufficient reason assigned by the respondent no.1 while rejecting the claim of the petitioners, therefore, there is no reason to send the matter to the Karmik Department.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. From the perusal of the impugned order, which has been passed in compliance of the order dated 16.08.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.23279 (SS) of 2018, I finds that the respondent no.1 has assigned the reasons after considering the entirety of the matter and, therefore, there is no force in the argument of the petitioner that they are entitled for relaxation for next promotion to the post of Scientific Assistant. The impugned order has also been passed after taking into consideration the entire facts as well as the provisions as provided in 2016 Rules. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 12.03.2019 is quoted below:
"mDr ds lEcU/k eas vij iqfyl egkfuns'kd] rduhdh lsok;sa] m0iz0 y[kuÅ ,oa funs'kd] fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk] m0iz0 y[kuÅ ls vk[;k izkIr dh x;h] ftlesa muds }kjk mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k fd iz;ksx'kkyk lgk;dksa ds dqn 66 in Lohd`r gSA blds lkis{k orZeku esa 22 iz;ksx'kkyk lgk;d tuinksa dh {ks=h; bdkbZ;ksa ¼QhYM ;wfuV½ esa rFkk 11 iz;ksx'kkyk lgk;d vkxjk] y[kuÅ] okjk.klh] eqjknkckn ,oa xkft;kckn iz;ksx'kkyk esa ¼dqy 33½ dk;Zjr gSa rFkk 33 inksa dks lh/kh HkrhZ ls Hkjs tkus gsrq vf/k;kpu m0iz0 v/khuLFk lsok p;u vk;ksx izsf"kr fd;k x;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa 'kklu ds i= fnukad 11-03-2018 }kjk vuqLej.k i= izsf"kr djrs gq, 'kh?kz p;u dh dk;Zokgh iw.kZ djus dk vuqjks/k lfpo] v/khuLFk lsok p;u vk;ksx ls fd;k x;k gSA fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk] m-iz- esa iz;ksx'kkyk lgk;dksa }kjk izn'kksZ dh lSEifyax] ijh{k.k] fjiksVZ Vkbfiax bR;kfn dk;ksZ esa lg;ksx iznku fd;k tkrk gSA ;fn 33 iz;ksx'kkyk lgk;dksa dks oSKkfud lgk;d ds in ij inksUufr iznku dj nh tkrh gS] rks ;g in iw.kZr% fjDr gks tk;sxkA ftlls iz;ksx'kkykvksa dk dk;Z okf/kr gks tk;sxkA oSKkfud lgk;dksa ds dk;Z ,oa nkf;Ro iz;ksx'kkyk lgk;dksa ds dk;Z ,o nkf;Ro ls fHkUu gSA buds dk;Z ,oa nkf;Roksa o iz;ksx'kkykvksa dh vko';drk dks ns[krs gq, f'kfFkyhdj.k dj oSKkfud lgk;d ds in ij inksUufr iznku fd;k tkuk lehphu ugh gksxkA iz;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ls oSKkfud lgk;d ds in ij inksUufr gsrq iz;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ds in ij 05 o"kZ dh vgZdkjh lsok iw.kZ djuk vfuok;Z gSA Jh ipkSjh }kjk iz;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ds in ij dsoy 03 o"kZ 09 ekg dh vgZdkjh lsok iw.kZ dh x;h gSA ;fn vgZdkjh lsok esa f'kfFkyhdj.k iznku djrs gq, bUgs oSKkfud lgk;d ds in ij inksUur fd;k tkrk gS rks vU; iz;ksx'kkyk lgk;dks dks Hkh f'kfFkyhdj.k iznku djrs gq, inksUur djuk gksxkA bl izdkj iz;ksx'kkyk lgk;dksa ds in iw.kZ:i ls fjDr gks tk;saxsa] ftlls iz;ksx'kkykvksa dk dk;Z okf/kr gksxkA vr% f'kfFkyhdj.k iznku fd;k tkuk foHkkxh; ,oa 'kkldh; fgr esa ugh gksxk mYys[kuh; gS fd f'kfFkykdj.k vf/kdkj ds :i esa ugha ekaxk tk ldrk gSA 5- vr,o mijksDr of.kZr rF;ksa ds n`f"Vxr Jh equsUnz dqekj ipkSjh dks iz;ksx'kkyk lgk;d ls vgZdkjh lsok esa f'kfFkykdj.k iznku djrs gq, oSKkfud lgk;d ds in ij inksUur fd;s tkus dk vkSfpR; u ikrs gq, ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 16-08-2018 ds vuqikyu esa ;kph Jh ipkSjh ds izR;konsu fnukad 24-01-2018 ,oa 24-08-2018 rFkk ;kph ds izR;ksonu fnukad 24-01-2018 ds lkFk layXu lg;kph Jh jkeohj ds izR;kosnu fnukad 08-01-2018 ,oa fnukad 23-01-2018] Jh foey dqekj JhokLro ds izR;kosnu fnukad 10-01-2018 rFkk Jh lat; dqekj flag ds izR;kosnu fnukad 12-09-2017] fnukad 10-01-2018 ,oa fnukad 15-06-2018 dks ,rn~}kjk vLohdkj djrs gq, fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA"
10. Rule 5 of 2016 Rules provides that 75% posts of Scientific Assistant is to be filled up by direct recruitment and 25% posts through promotion from Laboratory Assistant who have appointed substantively and completed five years of service. In 2016 Rules, five years of service for promotion to the post of Scientific Assistant is mandatory to which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not contradicted. The relaxation provided in the Rules is not created any rights to the petitioners for promotion. The respondent no.1 has rightly assigned the reason that if relaxation is given to the petitioners for next promotion then the posts of Lab Assistant shall become vacant and it shall be created major difficulty to run the laboratory. I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order dated 12.03.2019.
11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021 akverma