MUKUND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the CourtHeard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned Advocate for caveator. The order which we propose to pass in the writ petition, we need not call for any response from the respondents as same can be decided as fresh without any counter affidavit.

(2.) WHILE working as Executive Engineer in Rural Engineering Services at Sonebhadra Division, Sonebhadra the petitioner has filed above noted writ petition challenging the Seniority List of Executive Engineers of Rural Engineering Services published vide Office Memorandum No. 2950/62-3-2010-45-RES/2010 dated 8.9.2010 of State Government contained in Annexure-1 of the writ petition by seeking writ of certiorari. Further reliefs in the nature of mandamus to declare Rule 8Aof the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment Rules) 2007 as ultra vires and unconstitutional and directing the respondents not to proceed with and/or to promote any person on the next higher posts on the basis of the impugned Seniority List of Executive Engineers of Rural Engineering Services are also sought for.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner in the order dated 24/11/2009, it has been nowhere mentioned as to why the petitioner was not found suitable for promotion/ notional promotion while others were found suitable and accorded promotion/ notional promotion and further the criteria for according promotion/notional promotion was not disclosed; in as much the decision taken in the Selection Committee Meeting dated 29/5/2008, as referred to in the aforesaid order dated 24/11/2009 was never communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was accorded regular promotion to the post of Executive Engineer vide order dated 20.5.2005 and at that time also, the petitioner was entitled to be accorded promotion from the date of his juniors but it was not done. It is stated that others were given promotion/notional promotion in compliance of same and similar order of this Court while the case of the petitioner for promotion/notional promotion was rejected without assigning any reason as to why he should not be given such promotion. Photocopy of the order giving promotion/notional promotion to others are on record as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. It is stated that by illegally and arbitrarily denying promotion to the petitioner with effect from the date of his juniors, the petitioner has been shown at serial No. 36 while he ought to have been placed in between Sri Mohammad Rizvi (Serial No. 11) and Sri Mahmood llahi (Serial No.12), in the tentative Seniority List.