DINESH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to conclude the proceedings against the petitioner and if the petitioner is entitled for promotion he may be promoted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN this case on 16 -5 -2002 learned standing Counsel was granted one month's time to file counter -affidavit but no counter - affidavit has been filed so far. Hence we are treating the allegations in the petition to be correct.

(3.) IT is alleged in paragraph 8 of the petitioners that on the post of Director 3 persons can be appointed viz. Joint Director of the Department, Joint and Deputy Chief Audit Officer, Co -operative and Panchayat Department and thirdly from amongst the officers of account service having senior scale. It is alleged in paragraph 9 of the petition that though the petitioner was available for promotion and came within the first category the respondents have chosen to appoint Sri D.B. Singh who was in the third category. In paragraph 12 of the petition it is alleged that in February, 2000 the petitioner was issued a charge -sheet which related to year 1999 and he was accused of violating Section 3(6) of the U.P. Public Service (Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other Backwards Classes Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The charge against him was that 2 scheduled caste and 4 other backward class candidates who were to be treated as general candidates under Section 3(6) of the Act were treated as reserved candidates, which resulted in appointment of 6 more general candidates. True copy of the charge -sheet is Annexure -1 to the petition. Out of the 6 appointees the present Director served only 5 clerks with termination orders on the ground of violation of Section 3 (6) of the Act. The 6 persons filed writ petitions in this Court and the termination orders have been stayed and the petition is pending.