SITA RAM PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims that he belongs to backward class. It is averred by him that he was selected by the U. P. Public Service Commission as Drawing Inspector and was then appointed on 3rd October, 1984. He passed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in July, 1982. His grievance is that whereas his juniors namely ; Sarvsri K. K. Gupta, M. N. Banda and P. K. Lalwani were given ad hoc promotion on 9-11 1982 as Principal/Head, Government Secondary Technical School, he was denied promotion, though he obtained Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in July, 1982 which is the requisite qualification for the post of Principal, before 9-11-1982 when his aforesaid junior colleagues were given ad hoc promotion. It is, therefore, prayed by him that he too be promoted as ad hoc Principal/Head, Government Secondary School.

(2.) THE names of the aforesaid three persons had been sent in the year 1982 and the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) recommended to the Secretary to appoint them on 26-2-1982. As the petitioner was not qualified on that date his name was not recommended by the D.P.C. for ad hoc promotion. THE recommendations made by the D.P.C. were accepted and then the orders for ad hoc promotion of the three aforesaid persons had been issued on 9-11-1982. From this factual position, it is manifest that the petitioner was not qualified for the post of Principal when process of ad hoc promotion was set in motion. THE D.P.C, as it is manifest from the above facts had met before 26-2-1982 when it recommended the three names to the Secretary for ad hoc promotion. No doubt, the petitioner acquired minimum qualification for the post of Principal in July, 1982 when he passed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. But the fact remains that process of promotion commenced much before that date. THE question is whether the name of the petitioner could be considered along with the aforesaid three persons whose names were considered by the D.P.C. before 26-2-1982 on which date the D.P.C. made recommendations to the Secretary to appoint them as Principal. THE petitioner having not acquired qualification when the D.P.C. considered the names for promotion, and when it recommended the three names to the Secretary, plea of discrimination cannot be raised. THE petitioner was not similarly situated when the D.P.C. met to consider the question of promotion inasmuch as he did not then possess minimum requisite qualification for the post of Principal. It is a trite law that once the process of selection started, it cannot be stopped to include those who acquired requisite qualification later. One must possess the qualification at the time of commencement of the process. THE process cannot be reversed or cannot be started afresh to consider the names of those who acquired qulification at a subsequent stage. If it is permitted then the selection process will never come to an end. THErefore, the submission of the petitioner that he was discriminated against, falls to the ground.

(3.) THERE is nothing to show that the petitioner has got a legal right for ad hoc selection and no selection having been made in or after 1986, no mandamus as prayed by the petitioner, can be issued to constitute the D.P.C. to recommend the name of the petitioner for ad hoc selection. The petitioner relying on the G.O. dated 15-1-1986, Annexure 2 to the supplementary affidavit urged that he is entitled to the benefit of reservation when ad hoc promotions are made and that if his name were considered for ad hoc promotion in the year 1982 or immediately thereafter then his services would have been regularised in view of the G.O. dated 3-1-1-1988, Annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit. The petitioner would have been considered only if the respondents had resorted to ad hoc appointment and no ad hoc appointment having been made after the year 1982, when the petitioner was not even eligible, the respondents cannot he directed to promote the petitioner on ad hoc basis and to regularise his services on the basis of the G.O. dated 3rd November, 1988, Annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit.