OMVIR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two special appeals have been filed against the same judgment and order of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 9.1.2007, allowing the writ petition No. 47915 of 2006, filed by Satya Prakash Sharma. Appeal No. 147 of 2007 has been filed by Omvir Sharma, who was the respondent No. 4 in the writ petition. By the lmpugned judgment and order, the selection of respondent No. 4 on the post of Sadar Munsarim, which was impugned in the writ petition was quashed. The High Court also feeling aggrieved specially with the view of Hon'ble Single Judge that seniority of ministerial staffs of the subordinate Courts shall be governed by U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 and not by the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, has come up in the appeal.

(2.) WE have heard Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant in Special Appeal No. 147 of2007, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4. Sri Amit Sthelkar has appeared for the appellant in Special Appeal No. 287 of 2007 on behalf of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for appellant Omvir Sharma challenging the impugned judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge contended that the view of Hon'ble Single Judge that 1991 Rules are applicable with regard to determination of seniority of ministerial staffs of the subordinate Courts is erroneous. It is contended that service conditions including determination of seniority of ministerial staffs of subordinate Courts are governed by 1947 Rules and 1991 Rules being general rules applicable on the Government servants, have no application on the subordinate Courts staffs. It is submitted that 1947 Rules are special rules hence, they cannot be overridden by general Rules of 1991. It is submitted that view of the Hon'ble Single Judge that seniority shall be determined by 1991 Rules being erroneous, the entire decision is vitiated. It is further submitted that the writ petitioner had declared in writing not to accept the promotion and District Judge having accepted the prayer of writ petitioner debarring him permanently for promotion by order dated 9.6.1994, the subsequent promotion of the writ petitioner in 1997-98 are Void and have to be ignored. It is submitted that the writ petitioner having once declined to accept the promotion, had no right to claim promotion and Hon'ble Single Judge has not correctly appreciated the consequence of declining promotion by the writ petitioner. LEARNED Counsel for the appellant further contended that criteria for promotion on the post of Sadar Munsarim by virtue of Rule 20 of 1947 rules being merit and the committee having found the appellant meritorious and granted him promotion did not commit any error.