Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24847 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt, Promod Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babboo Ram Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aditya Bhushan Singhal
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner claims to be the senior most Class-IV employee and thereby alleges to be entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Clerk. Two posts are stated to have fallen vacant in the institution; first on 31.12.2015 and second on 31.07.2016. It is alleged that the qualification, as was required by 31st July, 2016, was possessed by the petitioner but her claim for promotion was not considered.
Subsequently, an amendment has been introduced by way of Government Order dated 04.01.2017 and the regulations have been modified so as to amend the eligibility itself. It is with reference to the amended eligibility that the petitioner's claim has been non-suited by the District Inspectors of Schools, Meerut on 16.10.2018. This order is assailed in the present petition.
It transpires that against the order dated 16.10.2018 the petitioner has also approached the Director of Education by way of representation, which is said to be pending.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in Virendra Singh vs. State of U.P. : 2013 (2) ADJ 761 has been pleased to clarify the law as under in paragraph 12 :-
"12. In view of this, once occurrence of vacancy has a role to play under Regulation 102 of Chapter-II of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921, then in such a situation eligibility of candidate under Regulation-
2 Chapter-III has to be seen in reference to the context of date of occurrence of the vacancy and not the date when the Management has proceeded to fill up the post."
Submission is that the qualification on the date of occurrence of vacancy, therefore, ought to have been relied upon instead of the qualification on the date of consideration of the claim for promotion.
Sri A.B. Singhal, appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6, on the other hand submits that the claim of respondent no. 6, for grant of compassionate appointment, once has been accepted, he is entitled to continue and no interference in the matter is warranted.
In the facts and circumstances noticed above, since factual issues require consideration and the petitioner has already represented in the matter before the Director, it would be appropriate to direct the second respondent to examine the petitioner's grievance in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
In view of the fact that entitlement of respondent no. 6 to be allowed compassionate appointment is not in issue, it is provided that in the event claim of petitioner is accepted, the authorities shall ensure adjustment of respondent no. 6 in any other nearby institution.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed off.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Pkb/