Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5165 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shubhakaran Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition is directed against two orders passed by the respondents. First order is dated 25.7.2013 which is a final seniority list prepared by the Departmental Committee in compliance of the judgment and order dated 15.4.2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 20469 of 2013 (Ashok Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others).
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the seniority list has not been prepared in accordance with the directions issued by this Court i.e. in accordance with the rule 17- Ka of the U.P. Collection Amin's Services Rules, 1974.
On a pointed query made by the Court as to what are the discrepancies in preparation of the seniority list and further as to why the petitioner did not challenge the said list for a period more than five years, no cogent reply could be given by learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule 17-Ka of Rules, 1974 has not been placed before the Court.
Thus, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the gradation list has been prepared in violation of the judgment and order 15.4.2013 passed by this Court is not substantiated from any material on record.
Second challenge is to the order dated 21st October, 2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria whereby seven persons kept in the seniority list had been granted regular appointment to the post of Collection Amin, under 35% of quota, pursuant to the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 16.10.2014. The Selection Committee considered the gradation list dated 25.7.2013 which has been challenged herein.
From a perusal of the said order and the records of the writ petition, it is clear that the persons who were appointed on the regular posts of Collection Amin in the year 2014 were at serial nos. 1 to 7 in the gradation list. Their regular appointment made in the year 2014 is sought to be challenged after a period of four years, without impleading any of them as respondents.
No specific averment has been made as to why the petitioner could not challenge the gradation list and the order of regular appointment of seven incumbents for a period of approximately 4 years.
The writ petition is, therefore, found misconceived and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Brijesh