Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite parties as well as Sri Kapil Dev senior advocate assisted by Sri Ashwani Kumar for learned counsel for opposite party no. 4.
The petitioner while working on Class 2 post, in response to advertisement published for the post of Assistant Soil Chemist also submitted his application. After due procedure his name was recommended by U. P. Public Service commission for appointment on the said post and he was required to under go medical examination on 30th June, 1999. He appeared in medical examination and the report was also sent to the authorities. On account of the non submission of the police verification report persons including the petitioner were not offered appointment orders and it is only on receiving the police verification report. The appointment letter in respect of opposite party no. 4 was issued and in pursuance thereof he submitted his joining on 6.5. 2000 and that of petitioner was dated 13.6.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said letter of appointment dated 13.6.2000 was dispatched from the office of the opposite parties on 20.6.2000. Thus, there was delay of six and more days in issuance of the appointment letter itself. Copy of the said letter was served on the petitioner only on 24.6.2000 and in pursuance thereof the petitioner accordingly reported on 11.7.2000 after completing the formalities. In the year 2006 the Departmental Promotion Committee was held for considering the Assistant Soil Chemist for promotion to that of Deputy Director. The name of the petitioner was also recommended for consideration but the Departmental Promotion Committee which was convened on 27.1.2006 rejected the petitioner case inter alia on the grounds that he did not complete requisite five years of service on the post of Assistant Soil Chemist as required under Rule 5 of the U.P. Krishi Sewa Shreni-1 Sewa Niyamawali, 1992.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed instant writ petition that appointment/joining on the post of Assistant Soil Chemist is delayed for no fault on the part of the petitioner but it is on account of the opposite parties in so far as the petitioner was higher in merit list prepared by the U.P. Public Service Commission 2 then the opposite party no. 4 and police verification report was also submitted. The appointment letter in favour of the opposite party no. 4 was dated 1.5.2000 whereas the letter of appointment is dated 13.6.2000 was despatched on 20th June, 2000 and served with the same on 24th June, 2000. Thus the laches was on the part of the authorities and as such it is not open to the members of DPC not to consider the case for promotion on account of requisite five years of service as required under Rule. In support of the aforesaid submission counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and others v. Union of India and others (1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 637 where the Apex Court in para 3 has observed as under :-
"It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the inter se seniority as Assistant Engineers was left open in the order, the directions given by the Tribunal to consider the case as Executive Engineer and determining his seniority on the basis of promotion, is not valid in law. We find no force in the contention. Once he is found to be eligible according to the rules, then his seniority is required to be determined as per the procedure prescribed in the rules in vogue. It is further contended that the fifth respondent was not qualified since he had not completed 8 years of required service. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that two years' period is relaxable in the case of the reserved candidates. The inter se seniority as Assistant Executive Engineer is required to be determined; he joined service in 1981 and, therefore, he did not have the requisite service. We find no force in the contention. Since he was selected by direct recruitment, he is entitled to be appointed according to rule. His appointment was delayed for no fault of his and he came to be appointed in 1981, he is, therefore, entitled to the ranking given in the select list and appointment made accordingly. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order."
In the instant case U.P. Public Service Commission recommended the candidature for appointment in June, 1999 but about a year has been taken by the authorities for issuing appointment letter which was served only 24.6.2000. In so far as the appointment order of Opposite Party No. 4, who also appeared along with the petitioner and whose name has also been recommended by the U.P. Public Service Commission and below in the merit list so prepared by the commission has been issued on 1.5.2000. In pursuance thereof he joined in May, 2000 itself and was considered for 3 promotion by the same DPC which rejected the name of the petitioner further his name was also recommended for promotion to the post of Deputy Director.
Thus, the appointment of the petitioner is delayed for no fault on the part of the petitioner but due to laches on the part of the opposite parties and as such he is entitled for consideration for his promotion to the post of Deputy Director from the date opposite party no. 4 has been promoted.
Let a mandamus be issued commanding the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 19.01.2010 Ks/ Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J.
Disposed of.
For orders see our order of date passed on the separate sheets.
19.01.2010 Ks/