Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.
Heard learned Standing Counsel for the State- the petitioner.
In this writ petition filed in the year 1989 the State is aggrieved by the judgment of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal dated 18.5.1989 in Claim Petition No. 69 (F)/III/87 by which the Judicial Member of the Tribunal has directed that the petitioner shall be considered for confirmation in Animal Husbandry Group-II and Group-I Service and Class-II Service and further that he shall be considered for promotion to the posts mentioned in para-12 of the Claim Petition and if he is found fit he shall be promoted.
The petitioner-respondent claimed that he was appointed as Stockman in the Animal Husbandry Department on 6.4.1954. In 1963 he was appointed in Animal Husbandry Service Group-II as Poultry Inspector, and that he was promoted w.e.f. 24.7.1966 as Junior Associate (Poultry) Group-I Service, which is at par with Senior Poultry Inspector as well as Assistant Project Officer (Poultry). Thereafter from 11.11.1980 he was working as Farm Manager (Poultry) in Subordinate Gazetted Class-II Service. There were two scales in Class-II Service namely Rs. 690-1420 for Subordinate Class-II and Rs. 850-1720 for Class-II. By virtue of length of service the petitioner was entitled to be promoted in the scale of Rs.850-1720.
There is 50% quota for promotions in Class-II service and that though the petitioner-respondent was working in Animal Husbandry Group-I Service till 31.10.1980, he was not considered either for confirmation or promotion. The petitioner also claimed discrimination with his juniors.
The department filed a written statement pleading that the petitioner was not selected on the post of Poultry Inspector. He was posted on adhoc basis. He was on deputation under Planning Research and Action Institute Department till 31.10.1978, and was appointed as Assistant Project Officer in stop gap arrangment till 31.10.1980. His promotion as Farm Manager was also on purely adhoc basis. The posts mentioned in para-12 of the petition are in U.P. Veterinary Service Cadre and that the petitioner cannot claim to be promoted as he has not been approved by the U.P. Public Service Commission and has not been confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the petitioner was promoted and was working as Farm Manager (Poultry) and that for reasons, which were not given in the written statement, the petitioner's name was not referred to Public Service Commission for approval. The Tribunal found that the petitioner has a right to be considered for confirmation, and promotion and issued directions accordingly.
It is submitted by learned counsel for State, that by a short and sketchy judgment the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition. The claimant-respondent was not eligible for consideration for promotion and had no right to be considered on a higher post, when he was not even in the eligibility list for being promoted on Group-II and Group-I posts.
The Tribunal has not directed for confirmation and promotion. The reference was accepted with the directions to consider the petitioner for confirmation in Animal Group-II and Group-I service and Class-II Service and thereafter for promotion.
We do not find that there is any positive directions given by the Tribunal. It was open to the department to consider petitioner for confirmation and promotion in accordance with the rules. If the petitioner was not eligible, his confirmation was liable to be rejected. The notices were issued in this writ petition on 25.9.1989 to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted. The notices were also issued to respondent-claimant Shri Bhola Prasad Yadav on 15.2.1990. No one has entered appearance for them. Thereafter the State filed an application for stay on 22.12.1989. The application was directed to be listed with records. The case thereafter went out of the list for 19 years and was listed before us on 13.1.2010 and thereafter 27.1.2010 for hearing.
We do not find any good ground to interfere with the order in which the Tribunal has not decided any issue and has simply directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for confirmation and promotion. No useful purpose will be served in sending notices to claimant-respondent after 19 years.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.1.2010 VNP/RKP