DEEPAK AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Notification dated 26.5.1999 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) so far as It pertains to respondent Nos. 3 to 9. It has also been prayed that petitioner be considered for promotion as Deputy Excise Commissioner and to quash the Notification dated 17.5.1999.

(2.) The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the vacancies on the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner had occurred before 17.5.1999, they ought to have been filled up in accordance with the 1983 rules which were applicable before 17.5.1999 when the rules were amended.

(3.) The petitioners were appointed through the U. P. Public Service Commission. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Technical Officer by means of order dated 13.8.1991 vide Annexure-1 to the petition and he started functioning as such. He has been confirmed by order dated 12.5.1995 with effect from 14.10.1993 vide Annexure-3 to the petition. Similarly, the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Statistical Officer by means of order dated 8.1.1992 vide Annexure-4 to the petition and he was confirmed by order dated 6.8.1997 with effect from 28.2.1994 vide Annexure-6 to the petition. The majority of officers in the Excise Department were initially recruited as Excise Inspectors and were subsequently promoted. The petitioners have alleged that there is no adverse entry against them and their work is fully satisfactory.