FASIH UDDIN AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Neeraj Upadhyay for the respondents No. 2 and 3.

(2.) It emerges from record that the petitioner admittedly a senior most clerk belonging to the ministerial cadre of Judgeship of District Rampur has approached this Court seeking promotion on the post of 'Sadar Munsarim'. According to him, he is the senior most ministerial employee of judgeship Rampur and as per application of seniority-cum-merit Rule, he became entitled for promotion on the post of 'Sadar Munsarim'. The District Judge, Rampur vide order dated 29.5.2008 constituted a three members committee headed by Shri R.B. Rai, Additional Distirct Judge, Court No. 5, Rampur for making selection and promotion on the post of 'Sadar Munsarim'. The service records of the eligible candidates were scrutinised and interview was held. The committee had recommended the name of Ram Gopal, respondent No. 4 for promotion on the post of 'Sadar Munsarim'. The sailing features of the report of the three members committee has been indicated in para 11 of the writ petition, which is quoted below:

(3.) It is noteworthy that the service record entries in the character roll and other materials relating to the period of five years preceding the date of selection i.e. 29.5.2008 was to be considered by the Selection Committee. As per Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel there was no adverse material in the service record of the petitioner except a censure entry which was recorded on 13.3.2008. On a representation submitted by the petitioner this censure entry was expunged by the Hon'ble High Court on the administrative side vide an order dated 9.4.2009, which was communicated vide formal communication dated 16.4.2009. As far as mention of other adverse materials in the order passed by the District Judge, Rampur dated 31.7.2008 while disposing of the representation of the petitioner is concerned, this adverse material has to be excluded from consideration as the same was of a remote period beyond five years period preceding the date of above date of selection. The events or entries recorded during 1993-1996 were wholly irrelevant and ought not have been considered.