U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. KHARAKSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel Mrs. Dikshit in support of the special leave petition.

(2.) The facts are in a very short compass. Respondent 1 viz. Kharak Singh was appointed on 15/05/1966 as Junior Engineer (ordinary grade) and thereafter, he was confirmed in the same post. On April 4.1977, the Chief Engineer promoted 69 Junior Engineers, of them 27 per- sons were junior to him w. e. f. 1/04/1976 in the selection grade. But the petitioner was not promoted due to adverse entries recorded in his service book. On 7/09/1977, 88 Junior Engineers were further promoted by the Chief Engineer in selection grade, by passing respondent 1 by deferring his case. On 14/02/1978, 37 engineers including 8 engineers junior to respondent 1 were promoted to the post of assistant Engineers but respondent 1 was not considered. Five engineers belonging to Scheduled Caste and junior to respondent were also promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. Respondent 1 who belongs to the Scheduled Caste was not promoted in spite of the fact that he was senior and suitable. The said respondent 1, therefore, made an application before the U. P. Public Service tribunal, assailing the refusal to consider his case for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer in the selection grade as well as for further promotion to Assistant Engineer, contending, inter alia, that all the adverse reports for the period 23/05/197 2/07/1973 in the year of 1972-73 and from 24/07/1973 to 30/11/1973, against which he filed representations, were expunged by an order dated 5/05/1979, passed by the Chief Engineer. He has also pleaded that besides these adverse entries no other adverse reports were communicated to him and, as such, his case was entitled to be considered by the authorities concerned and he should have been given the promotions due to him, as has been given to other engineers, though some of them are juniors to him.

(3.) The tribunal on hearing the parties passed its judgment on 17/10/1984 in Claim Petition No. 208/ (P) /4/79, holding, inter alia that: though the case of respondent 1 was considered but it was left out every time of selection from 1977 to 1979 and the only reason for not giving promotion to respondent 1 was that his work was not satisfactory and many adverse entries were found in his character rolls. It has been further found that besides the adverse reports for the year 1972-73, which were expunged by the order of the Chief Engineer dated 5/05/1979, there was no other adverse report. The tribunal, therefore, after considering entire facts and circumstances of the case passed the following order: