EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TUBEWELL DIVISION Vs. RAM SAJAN SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 1 Ram Sajan Shukla had challenged the order dated 14.10.1985, passed by the respondent No. 4 rejecting his candidature for promotion on the post of Junior Engineer in the department.

(2.) The respondent No. 1/ petitioner was working as Beldar in Tube Well Division of Irrigation Department, district Kanpur and while serving, he had obtained a diploma in Mechanical Engineering and had made application for recruitment as Junior Engineer for which the I.I.T., Kanpur, was duly authorised to conduct the test, etc. The respondent No. 4 on due scrutiny found that the respondent No. 1 was not entitled for the direct recruitment and his candidature was rejected. Being aggrieved with this rejection, the Writ Petition No. 1710 of 1986 was filed by the respondent No. 1, which was finally disposed of by the learned single Judge vide order dated 27.11.1992 directing the respondents to consider his candidature for promotion as Junior Engineer within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the said judgment. Pursuant to the said order passed by the learned single Judge, the case of respondent No. 1 was considered by a Selection Committee which after due scrutiny found him as not eligible for promotion and communicated the same vide order dated 16.2.1993. This order of rejection for promotion of the respondent No. 1 on the post of Junior Engineer was again questioned in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 1710 of 1986 by moving a misc. application by the respondent No. 1 and he made a prayer that the final order dated 27.11.1992 in writ petition be modified directing that he again be considered for such promotion, as he was wrongly not promoted in the year 1985. The learned single Judge, while entertaining this application in the aforesaid finally decided writ petition called upon the standing counsel to file counter-affidavit within three weeks and listed the case for 16.4.1993. The case was taken up on that date and when the Court found that the counter-affidavit was not filed by the respondents, it passed the order dated 16.4.1993 in the following terms :

(3.) After passing of the aforesaid order, the appellant moved an application dated 13.5,1993 for setting aside and to recall the order dated 16.4.1993. That application was taken up on 5.11.1993 and the same was rejected on that date. Another application dated 26.4.1994 for recalling the orders dated 5.11.1993, passed on the application dated 13.5.1993 was moved by the appellant. That application was allowed vide order dated 21.7.1995, whereafter immediately on the same day the application dated 13.5.1993, for recalling the order dated 16.4.1993 was taken up and the learned single Judge dismissed it. As a result thereof, the ex parts order dated 16.4.1993 remained operative.