VINOD KUMAR RAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sunil Kumar Misha, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation.

(2.) Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondent Corporation dtd. 9/9/2014 whereby the promotion of the petitioner as Tyre Inspector made on 13/9/2012 has been cancelled.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner while working on the post of Vulcanizer was promoted as per seniority as Tyre Inspector in the year 2012 and merely because his earlier writ petition, in respect of the promotion to the post of vulcanizer was dismissed in default, the respondents were not justified in cancelling the order of promotion. He submits that as earlier petitioner was promoted from the post of Assistant Vulcanizer to Vulcanizer on 11/2/2005, the said order was wrongly recalled on the ground that reservation shall not apply in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others 2012 5 ADJ page no. 19 where reservation to promotional posts were held to be bad without scheme. It is submitted that though petitioner was promoted in general category on the basis of merit on 11/2/2005 even then his promotion was sought to be withdrawn on the ground that roster will not apply. The said order dtd. 23/3/2005 came to be challenged in writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27430 of 2005. It is submitted that the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier petition only because he was awarded with second promotion on 13/9/2012, of course, after the judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court on 27/4/2012 in Rajesh Kumar case (supra).