PRADEEP KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBSTANTIALLY a common question of law involved in all these four writ petitions and, therefore, the same are being taken up together, for disposal.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the three writ petitions, filed by Pradeep Kumar Jain, as narrated in these petitions, are that on 30.05.1989, the said petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in the Wool Grading Centre, Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal. He is Bachelor of Arts. Due to the illness of one Sri K.M. Petwal, Store Supervisor in the Centre, vide order dated 21.01.1994. Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Pauri, directed Sri Petwal to hand over his charge to the petitioner, a Junior Clerk. Consequently, the petitioner started discharging functions of Store Supervisor w.e.f. 09.06.1994. Vide order dated 03.02.1997, Additional Director, Animal Husbandry (Hills) absorbed the petitioner on the post of Store supervisor on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 1400 -2600. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.12.1997, services of the petitioner were regularized on said post. Though, the post of Store Supervisor was a promotional post to be filled from the persons holding posts of Marketing Inspector -cum -Auction Organizer and Graduate Assistants, but according to the petitioner, since, no qualified person was available, in the special circumstances, petitioner was appointed/regularized on said post. It is alleged by the petitioner, that administrative powers of Director were delegated vide Government Order dated 28.12.1982 to the Additional Director (Uttarakhand), as such, the delegatee was competent to pass orders of confirmation/regularization in favour of the petitioner. Alleging that successor Additional Director, illegally and arbitrarily, vide his order dated 02.07.1998, referring Directors order dated 27.05.1998, reverted the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk, on the ground that Dr. S.N. Arya, the then Additional Director was not competent to promote the petitioner, on the post of Store Supervisor. The petitioner has stated that after his promotion, not only his name figured in the seniority list, but vide Government Order dated 16.08.2000, he was allowed to discharge functions of other equivalent post. Challenging the impugned reversion order, it is alleged by the petitioner, that the same is illegal and arbitrary as no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner nor principles of natural justice were followed by the authorities concerned. In Writ Petition No. 503 (S/S) of 2001, order dated 02.07.1998, the order of reversion is challenged. In Writ Petition No. 770 (S/S) of 2001, order dated 25.02.2001, whereby order permitting the petitioner to discharge function as In -charge of Wool Grading Centre was withdrawn and order dated 21.02.2000, circulating final seniority list, are challenged. And, in Writ Petition No. 2002 (S/S) of 2005, order dated 09.09.2005, whereby respondent Suresh Chandra Bajpai, Marketing Inspector was promoted to the post of Deputy Director, is challenged.