RAJ KUMAR Vs. ROHTAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) We have heard counsel for the parties.

(3.) The facts not in dispute are that the appellant as well as Respondent 1 were working as Safai Karamcharis in the respondent Municipal Committee. On 1.03.1999 the Municipal Committee selected the appellant for promotion to the post of Safai Daroga. It is not disputed that the eligibility conditions prescribed that the person to be appointed as Safai Daroga must be literate, inasmuch as he should have knowledge of Hindi. On 1.03.1999 the cases of the appellant as well as Respondent 1 were considered and the appellant was promoted to the post of Safai Daroga while respondent was held ineligible for promotion since he was illiterate. It also appears from the record maintained by the Municipal Committee, including the seniority list, that the respondent was shown as illiterate in the municipal records.