GOVIND SINGH SIJWALI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this Writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 30.4.2001 passed by the Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare Services, whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected regarding his claim as to seniority vis -a -vis respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner initially joined has services as a ward boy (Class IV) in the Medical and Health Department on 26.12.79 against a vacant post under orders of the Chief Medical Officer, Almora. The petitioner passed intermediate examination in the year 1980. Apart from this petitioner had knowledge of typing work and consequently he was doing practically clerical work under order dated 5.7.1985 (Copy Annexure -1 of the writ petition) of the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Almora. On completion of 5 years of service in class IV category, the petitioner made representation for his promotion to the post of Junior Clerk in class III which was duly recommended (copy Annexures -3 and 4 to writ petition) by Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Almora, The Chief Medical Officer, Almora also recommended the petitioner's case for promotion. However, respondent No. 4 Shri Jagdish Chandra Sati and respondent No. 5 Shri Dan Singh Bisht were promoted to class HI and petitioner was allegedly discriminated and left out. It is further alleged in writ petition that respondent No. 4 actually joined services in class IV post only in the year 1984 and respondent No. 5 joined as class IV employee in year 1983. As such both of them were junior to the petitioner. Aggrieve by the promotion of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the petitioner filed a claim petition No. 40/11/1990 before U.P Public Services Tribunal who disposed of the case on 28th January, 1991 (copy Annexure -6) where by the Tribunal observed that the promotion of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was in violation of the Government Orders and appointment from class IV to class III be made as per the Government Orders. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the Government Order No. 37/1 -1968 personnel -2, dated 31.8.1982 as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. In compliance of the orders of the Tribunal a competitive examination was held on 8.3.1996 for promotion in which petitioner secured highest marks (copy of examination result Annexure -8 and 9) and got promoted to the post of class III but respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were neither called nor appeared in the examination and continued to enjoy their earlier promotions. Alleging that the promotion of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was illegal, the petitioner has claimed that he cannot be placed junior to them in the seniority list Junior Clerks. It appears that meanwhile, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were ordered to be reverted to class IV post but they succeeded in obtaining the orders from the Allahabad High Court by filing a writ petition regarding their continuance in service till the competitive test was held. A copy of the order dated 16,4.1991 passed by the Allahabad High Court is annexed as Annexure -10 to the writ petition. The petitioner, on being aggrieved by the rejection of his representation as to his seniority vis -a -vis respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have challenged the order of rejection through this writ petition.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondent No, 4 a separate counter affidavit has been filed by Shri Jagdish Chandra Sati in which more or less the same averments are made as mentioned earlier in the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. It is stated in the counter affidavit that respondent No. 4 was promoted as Store Keeper -cum -Clerk due to his experience and qualification in this regard. It is also stated in this counter affidavit that respondent No. 4 was not employed by the petitioner in the claim petition filed before the UP. Public Service Tribunal, as such the same has no affect in the services of the petitioner. Regarding reversion and obtaining order from the Allahabad High Court, it is stated in this counter affidavit that the respondent No. 4 was wrongly reverted due to which the. answering respondent had to approach the Court and obtain the order for his continuance in service.