SHAILENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) IN this writ petition on 22 -2 -2001 learned standing counsel was granted one month's time to file counter -affidavit. Thereafter on 1 -5 -2001 respondents were again granted three weeks' time to file counter -affidavit. Then on 23 -9 -2002 respondents were again granted three weeks' time to file counter -affidavit. Again on 27 -11 -2002 they were granted three weeks' time for this purpose. Ultimately on 19 -12 -2002 they were granted three weeks' time and no more to file counter -affidavit. Thus, the respondents were granted sufficient time to file counter -affidavit, as many as on five occasions and on the last occasion, i.e. on 19 -12 -2002 they were granted three weeks' further time and no more. Despite these orders and the stop order dated 19 -12 -2002 no counter -affidavit has been filed so far. We are not inclined to grant any further time for that purpose. Hence we are treating the allegations made in the petition to be correct and are proceeding to dispose it of.

(3.) IN paragraph 11 of the Writ Petition it has been stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the case of the petitioner and recommended his name for promotion as Associate Professor in Medicine in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has invited our attention to paragraph 16 of the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government in Writ Petition No. 36101 of 1996, a copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. In that paragraph it has been stated that had Dr. Goel not been posted at Allahabad (as Associate Professor) the petitioner would have been posted as Associate Professor in the Medical College, Allahabad.