VIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the district of Gorakhpur there is an institution known as Rashtriya Kanya Inter College, Grakhpur which is duly recognised and aided institution under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Institution in question is in grant in aid list of the State Government and the provision of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are fully applicable to the said institution. Service condition of Class III employees are governed under relevant provision of Regulation-2 and Regulation 101 to 107 of Chapter-Ill of U.P. Act No. 2 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

(2.) IN the aforesaid institution, three posts of Class III are duly sanctioned, which is inclusive of one post of Head clerk and two posts of Assistant clerk. One K.K. Srivastava has been working as Assistant Clerk, retired on 31.1.2006 and another Assistant clerk namely Shesh Nath Pandey retired on 31.12.2009 thus giving rise to two substantive vacancy. Petitioner of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10127 of 2012 namely Virendra Singh has contended that he was appointed on the post of Chowkidar in the institution concerned on 8.4.2005 and further submits that he has completed his five years service as Class IV employee on 10.4.2010. Petitioner submits that one post of clerk out of the two vacant posts was liable to be filled by way of promotion as per provision of Regulation-2 of Chapter-Ill framed under Section 16-G of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It appears that Authorised Controller, who had been functioning in the institution concerned intended to fill up the said post by way of direct recruitment and by letter dated 4.6.2011 permission was sought for from Director of Education (Madhyamik), U.P. Lucknow for filing up the aforesaid two posts of Class III employee by way of direct recruitment. Director of Education (Madhyamik), U.P. at Lucknow vide letter dated 29/30.6.2011 accorded permission to fill up said vacancy.

(3.) SRI Dharam Pal Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri P.K. Dubey, Advocate and S. Niranjan, Advocate appearing for Virendra Singh contended that legitimate right of Virendra Singh to be accorded promotion has been defeated in unlawful manner, whereas on the date of advertisement, he was fully eligible to be considered for promotion, and in view of this to deprive him of promotion is perse bad. It has also been contended that appointment of Mamta Ojha and Anil Yadav is nothing but an out come of fraud and manipulation and their name had been finalised even before selection took place and accordingly writ petition preferred on behalf of Virendra Singh deserves to be allowed and writ petition in respect of Mamta Ojha and Anil Yadav, as their appointment is nothing, but an out come of fraud and manipulation deserves to be dismissed.