UMESH CHANDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -An advertisement appeared in the newspaper inviting applications from the public for appointment to the post of a Sub Inspector (Civil Police) for the session 1987-88. The petitioner applied and qualified for the interview in which he was also declared successful. However, the petitioner was prevented from being sent for training at the Police Training College, Moradabad, whereas other persons of his batch were sent for training and thereafter were posted at various police stations in the State of U. P. Since the petitioner was discriminated, he and other similarly situated persons filed Writ Petition No. 18939 of 1989 before this Hon'ble Court. This petition was allowed by a judgment dated 15.3.1991. This Court held that the remaining 39 vacancies for the session 1987-88 shall be filled up from the remaining candidates of the Select List from Sl. No. 414 onwards. The operative portion of the judgment is quoted herein :

(2.) IT further transpires that a special leave petition was preferred by the State of U. P. before the Supreme Court of India which was dismissed by a judgment dated 16.9.1991. Inspite of the dismissal of the special leave petition, the petitioner was not appointed and has compelled to file a Contempt Petition No. 431 of 1994 in which the Special Secretary (Home) was directed to appear in person. Eventually, a letter dated 27.6.1994 was issued indicating therein that in pursuance of the select list of 1987-88, the petitioner was directed to report for training before the Police Training College, Moradabad, on or before 7.7.1994. The said letter also indicated that the order was being issued in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. The petitioner further stated that based on the aforesaid order, he appeared before the Police Training College, Moradabad and after completing his training, was placed as a Sub-Inspector. However, the petitioner was given the placement on the basis of the list prepared in the year 1994 whereas he should have been placed in the select list of the year 1987-88. The petitioner made a detailed representation praying that he should be given the correct placement which remained pending and eventually the petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.53492 of 2000 which was disposed of by a judgment dated 11.12.2000, directing respondent No. 2 to decide the matter by a speaking order within four months. Based on the directions of this Court, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) U. P. at Allahabad, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 12.6.2001 rejecting the claim of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be placed in the list of 1987-88. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed praying for the quashing of the order dated 12.6.2001, passed by respondent No. 2, and further praying for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to place the petitioner as per his merit in the gradation list of the year 1987-88 and grant all consequential benefits.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the judgment of this Court dated 15.3.1991 the petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector for the session 1987-88 from the original merit list prepared by the respondent and therefore, he should be placed in the Gradation List of 1987-88 and should not be placed in the Gradation List of 1994 as is also clear from the letter of the respondents dated 27.6.1994. The petitioner further submitted that in view of Rule 8 (2) of the U. P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991, the petitioner was also entitled to be given the seniority as shown in the merit list. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Surendra Narain Singh and others v. State of Bihar and others, (1998) 5 SCC 246.