Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh,J.
(Delivered by Hon. Ashok Pal Singh, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The facts culled out from the record of the case are that the respondent no.1, Sri Umesh Chandra Vyas had filed Claim Petition No. 829 of 2006, Umesh Chandra Vyas versus State of U.P. and another before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal') against order dated 14.9.2005 claiming that the petitioners have not promoted him from L.T. Grade to Gazetted Officer. In this regard his representation had also been rejected by them. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 20.11.2008 while allowing his claim petition directed the present petitioners to consider the case of promotion of the respondent no.1 from the date his juniors have been promoted on the basis of seniority in the L.T. Grade with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the persons junior to the respondent no.1 have been promoted is illegal and against the record as none of such persons was promoted. The dispute in the present case pertains to the promotion of Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade in Government Inter Colleges on a Gazetted Post in accordance with the U.P. Education Teaching (Subordinate Gazetted) Service Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Service Rules'). Rule 5(1) of the said Service Rules provides that 45% posts are to be filled up by promotion amongst the lecturers who have completed three years regular service on substantive posts and 55% appointment by promotion from amongst the Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade who have completed 12 years regular service on substantive posts. The criteria for promotion is seniority subject to rejection of unfit as prescribed under Rule 8 of the said Service Rules. A perusal of the record reveals that appointments by promotion were made from amongst the lecturers and Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade vide order dated 14.9.2005. It was alleged by the respondent no.1 that in the order dated 14.9.2005 two teachers, namely, Sri Jagarnath at sl. no. 35 and Sri Ram Nath at sl. no. 39, who were junior to him, have been promoted. The representation moved by him to the Director,Secondary Education was dismissed on 27.2.2006 on the ground that no person junior to him had been promoted. It was against this order that the respondent no.1 had filed Original Application No. 829 of 2006, Umesh Chandra Vyas versus State of U.P. and another before the Tribunal which was allowed vide its order dated 20.11.2008 which has been impugned in the instant writ petition. The record further reveals that in the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 following five persons named as junior to him were said to be allowed promotion.
The petitioners denying the above allegations have stated that in the promotion order it was Shiv Lal who was promoted at sl. no. 18 and not Shiv Lal Verma. At sl. no. 38 Ram Nath Prabhakar was promoted and not Ram Nath and at sl. no. 35 it was Syed Mohd. Raza Rizvi who was promoted and not Mohd. Hasan Rizvi. It is further stated that Shiv Lal who was promoted and mentioned at sl. no. 18 in the promotion order is at sl. no. 2036 in the seniority list of Assistant Teachers L.T. Grade for the year 1971-1980. Ram Nath Prabhakar mentioned at sl. no. 38 in the promotion order is at sl. no. 2251 in the senority list of Assistant Teachers LT Grade for the year 1981-1991 and both of them are senior to the respondent no.1 as the respondent no.1 is at sl. no. 2815 in the seniority list of Assistant Teachers LT Grade for the year 1981-1991. Babu Lal mentioned at sl. no. 36, Bhanu Pratap Singh at sl. no. 29 and Syed Mohd. Raza Rizvi at sl. no. 331 in the promotion order were promoted in lecturers quota from the seniority list of Lecturers for the year 1971-1980. Learned counsel for the petitioners has provided a chart with his written argument which is found helpful in making the position clear regarding the seniority of the above candidates. For ready reference the chart is reproduced below. Sl. No. Name Dateof Birth Tentative Seniority list Page numberin the writ petition Final seniority list
1. Shiv Lal Verma 7.1.1954 1843 82 3008
2. Ram Nath 17.7.1940 2261 83
---
Retired in 2001
3. Babu Lal Yadav 2.1.1942 2681 ( At sl.no.2881, Ram Narain Shukla) 84
---
Retired in 2002
4. Bhanu Pratap Singh 10.6.1941 2961(not 2981) 85
---
Retired in 2001
5. Mohd. Hasan Rizvi 1.7.1941 3321 86
----
Retired in 2001 It thus becomes clear from the aforesaid details that Ram Nath, Babu Lal Yadav, Bhanu Pratap Singh and Mohd. Hasan Rizvi had already retired when the promotion order dated 14.9.2005 was passed and therefore, there was no question of their promotion. At the time of the arguments a statement has also been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Shiv Lal promoted vide order dated 14.9.2005 at sl. no. 18 has also retired in 2009 as his date of birth is 15.7.1948. It thus becomes clear from the above facts and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties that no person junior to the respondent no.1 was promoted from amongst the Assistant Teachers in LT Grade cadre and therefore the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are wholly perverse and illegal being against the facts on record. The respondent no.1 was not at all entitled for being considered for promotion. Due to the aforesaid reasons the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is found liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.11.2008 passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. Dated: 30th April, 2012 CPP/-