Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8592 of 2018 Petitioner :- Poonam Srivastava Siddharth Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to consider petitioner's claim for counting her services between 2008 to 2016, and also to count the period undergone on training towards the services rendered by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.24910 of 2006 (Constable 88 C.P. Lal Babu Shukla and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 8.4.2009, in order to contend that the period spent on training is liable to be counted. It is also contended that petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment in the year 2008, and since the respondents have offered her appointment belatedly in the year 2016, the period from 2008 to 2016 be also included in the service record.
Petition is opposed by learned Standing Counsel by submitting that the decision taken in Writ Petition No.24910 of 2006 is only in respect of Constable, whereas petitioner has been appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector. It is contended that the Sub Inspectors while on training are paid stipend under the rules, and there is no provision for counting period of training also in the length of service of the officers.
Admittedly petitioner has been appointed on compassionate ground in the year 2016. Pursuant to this order, petitioner has already joined and is working. There is no provision, which entitles the petitioner to grant of appointment from a previous date. There is also no judicial order in favour of the petitioner in that regard. Her services during the period 2008 to 2016, therefore, cannot be counted. So far as the inclusion of training period is concerned, there is no provision in that regard either. The judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.24910 of 2006 dealt with the services of a Constable, whereas petitioner is a Sub-Inspector. Under the rules, an appointment order is issued only after satisfactory completion of training and the seniority is also determined on the basis of performance of a candidate during the training period. In such circumstances, no direction can be issued to count the petitioner's period of training towards her service.
Writ petition is wholly misconceived, and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Anil