NAND LAL PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a retired employee of Nagar Nigam, Gorakpur. He retired from the post of Tax and Revenue Inspector on 31.12.2005. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by the second respondent/Director of Local Body, U.P. Lucknow, whereby the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Clerk on the post of Revenue Inspector dated 4.10.1983 has been cancelled. The essential facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 30.12.1975 as a Clerk under the Schedule Caste quota. On 29.4.1981 the Deputy Secretary, Local Body, Lucknow sought the information from the Nagar Palika, Gorakhpur regarding the vacant post of Revenue Inspector. In response thereto the Officer Incharge, Nagar Palika, Gorakhpur on 2.5.1981 informed the State Government that wo post of Revenue Inspector is still vacant in the Nagar Palika, Gorakhpur. At that point of time the District Magistrarte, Gorakhpur was functioning as the Administrator of the Nagar Palika as a additional charge. He issue a direction on 9.8.1982 to the fourth respondent/Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Palika, Gorakhpur to fill the vacant post of the Revenue Inspector by promotion from the reserved category candidate.

(2.) IN the meantime on 3.5.1983 the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service (XI Amendment) Regulation, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as Amended Centralized Service Rules,1983) was enforced by which the post of Revenue Inspector has been included in the Centralized Service and the appointing authority under the Centralized Rules for the post of Revenue Inspector is the Director, Local Bodies. On 27th September, 1984 the Director issued a communication/circular to all the Administrator/Executive Officers of the Corporations stating that in view of the Amended Centralized Service Rules,1983 the post of Revenue Inspector has been included under the Centralized Service Rules and as such all the employees who are working under the aforesaid Rules their service record shall be forwarded to the Directorate. The Director of Local Bodies on 23.4.1988 sent a communication to the Secretary, Nagar Vikas Anubhag, that in several Corporation including Meerut, Gorakhpur and Kanpur Revenue Inspectors have been illegally appointed after 3.5.1983 by the Corporation as such directions have been issued to the concerned Administrators/Corporations to dispense with the services of such appointment. In the same communication he has requested the State Government to issue direction to the Corporations that in future the Corporation should not make any appointment directly on those posts except in exceptional cases. If the appointment is necessary, in that event, proposal may be sent to the Directorate for consideration. A copy of the said communication is on the record as Annexure -6 to the writ petition.

(3.) IN response to the said communication the Administrator, Nagar Palika, Gorakhpur sent a communication dated 2.5.1988 wherein it has been informed that there are eleven post of Revenue Inspector is sanctioned in the Corporation and One post was lying vacant on 20th September, 1982 and the process for his promotion was initiated. On the recommendation of the Selection Committee the petitioner was promoted on 3.10.1983. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner has been working for the last five years at that point of time and his work and conduct was satisfactory.