PARESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to forthwith consider the petitioner for promotion as Assistant Regional Transport Officer against vacancies of the year 1999-2000 and to permit the petitioner to function as Assistant Regional Transport Officer and to pay him salary accordingly.

(2.) On 13.5.1981, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Regional Transport Inspector (Technical) and was given ad hoc promotion on 1.1.1988 as Regional Inspector (Technical). By the order dated 27.4.1995, the Transport Commissioner granted promotion to the petitioner as Regional Inspector (Technical) without making any reference to the U. P. Public Service Commission. The aforesaid promotion was granted to the petitioner when the U. P. Public Service Commission (Limitation and Function) (13th Amendment) Regulation, 1994, was in force. The promotions in pursuance of the said amended Regulation of 1994 were excluded from the purview of the Public Service Commission.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Susheel Chandra Srivastava v. State of V.P. and Ors., 1996 (1) ESC 936, held that the aforementioned 13th Amended Regulation, 1994 is ultra uires the Constitution of India and hence it struck down the said amendment. Thereafter the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer by the order dated 1st June, 2001 with effect from 23rd January, 1999, vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner claimed that he should be considered for promotion as Assistant Regional Transport Officer in view of the service Rules, namely, U. P. Transport Service Rules, 1990 (filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition). Rule 5 of the service rules provides the source of recruitment of Assistant Regional Transport Officer. Rule 5 (1) (i) provides 50% by promotion through the Commission from amongst the permanent Passenger/Goods Tax Officer and Technical Inspectors/ Regional Inspectors (Technical), who have put in five years' continuous service as such. The petitioner claims that in view of the aforesaid Rule, the respondent should consider him for promotion.