STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. GAYATRI DEVI PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

(2.) Initially, the special leave petition was filed against an order of the learned Single Judge made on 23/9/1991 in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 20281 of 1988 directing the State to promote Gayatri Devi Pandey to the post of Vocational Guidance Counsellor. On 21/8/1995, when the matter was heard for some time, it was suggested to the counsel whether the writ petition itself could be disposed of on merits, instead of remitting the matter to the High court for decision on merits. In fairness, both the counsel agreed that the writ petition itself could be disposed of by this court. Accordingly, the writ petition pending in the High court was withdrawn. We have heard the petition on merits. Consequently, all the relevant material has been placed before us

(3.) Smt Gayatri Devi was initially appointed as a School Psychologist on 17/12/1962; she joined the post on 3/1/1963 and was selected on regular basis by the Uttar Pradesh public service commission on 5/8/1964. Since those posts came to be abolished, she had consented to her being appointed as a L. T. Grade teacher; consequently, she came to be appointed on 5/3/19666. It is also clear from the record that she was also regularised as L. T. Grade teacher w. e. f. 1/4/1966. By proceedings dated 18/4/1975, she was appointed on ad hoc basis as Assistant Psychologist in the scale of Rs. 400-750 in the Bureau of Psychology subject to the terms that her service would be terminated at any time without prior notice and she would be reverted back to her original post. Later, she came to be promoted further on ad hoc basis by proceedings dated 12/8/1975 within four months as Vocational Guidance Counsellor in the scale of Rs. 450-850 as was existing at that time. Her representation for confirmation as Assistant Psychologist came to be rejected by the Department. Resultant Writ Petition No. 3096 of 1983 was disposed of by order dated 17/2/1988 directing the authorities to consider and decide the representation with a speaking order. The authorities by proceedings dated 13/7/1988 rejected the representation. Calling that order in question, the present writ petition came to be filed