VIJAY KUMAR MEHROTRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESERVED Petitioner-Vijay Kumar Mehrotra was appointed on the post of Assistant Sales Tax Officer vide order dated 26.2.1973 after being duly selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission. In due course the petitioner was made confirmed on the post of Assistant Sales Tax Officer w.e.f. 15th June 1975. Later on, according to the petitioner, he was given adhoc promotion on the post of Sales Tax Officer vide order dated 5.1.1982.

(2.) In the year 1983, a provisional seniority list of Sales Tax Officers was issued inviting objections thereon from those officers whose names had appeared in the said seniority list. According to the petitioner, though he was working as Sales Tax Officer since 1982, his name was not included in the said seniority list whereas persons junior to him were included. The Office Memorandum dated 1st September, 1993 provided that only those Sales Tax Officer have been given place in the seniority list who have either been approved by the Public Service Commission or who have been declared regular under the Regularization Rules notified vide notification dated November 3, 1983. The State Government on 20.3.1989 issued a notification wherein list of regularization of Sales Tax Officers promoted on adhoc basis prior to Ist January 1985 was notified. In this notification too, the petitioner's name was not mentioned. According to the petitioner, regularization was denied to the petitioner probably because the decision relating to certifying of the integrity of the petitioner for the year 1983- 84 was not taken into consideration by the State Government.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no occasion for keeping his matter in sealed cover in view of Rule 7 of the Regularization Rules as neither any formal departmental enquiry or proceeding were pending against the petitioner nor there was any order of the Court restraining the opposite parties for giving regular appointment by promotion to the petitioner. Further, he was wrongly been denied regularization and discriminated as his integrity was certified by the order dated 4.4.1991 and there was no other impediment in making the petitioner regular when the persons junior to the petitioner were made regular.