RAJANI KANT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was working as a Gauge Reader. He filed a claim petition in the U.P. state Public Services Tribunal claiming promotion on the post of Data Processor on the ground that two persons Who, were junior to him had been promoted with effect from 1.9.1980. These persons were Jagat Pratap Singh opposite party No. 4 in the tribunal and Ram Saroj Chaubey. The case was con-tested by the State. The tribunal by its order-dated 2.6.1992 allowed the claim petition and directed the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner, with all consequential benefits. As no order was passed for promoting the petitioner, the petitioner approached the civil court for execution of the order of the tribunal on the basis of a certificate issued by the tribunal for enforcement of the relief awarded. The civil court by Its impugned order dated 2.2.1999 has rejected the execution case on the ground that the tribunal had merely directed the consideration of the petitioner's case for promotion but there was no direction to, promote the petitioner. According to the respondents the directions of the Tribunal have been complied with in that a committee which was constituted after the Tribunal's order to consider the petitioner's case for promotion did not find the petitioner entitled.

(2.) The question in this case therefore is as to how the order of the tribunal is to be interpreted, it is necessary for that purpose to refer to the finding, which the tribunal has recorded. in the body of the order the tribunal set out before itself the exercise it was required to conduct whether the petitioner was senior to the two persons aforesaid and whether he possessed the requisite educational qualification of B.A. at the time, When his so called juniors were promoted as Data Processor ignoring his rightful claim of promotion to the said post it found : "From para 7 of the counter affidavit/written statement that Jagat Pratap Singh the opposite party No. 4 and Ram Saroj Chaubey were appointed in 1979 to the post of Gauge Reader whereas the petitioner was appointed as such in 1976 prior to the appointment of the said employees. Moreover the said junior opposite parties have been shown to be promoted to the post of Data Processor on 1.9.1980. In this para the petitioner has been declared Unfit for the said promotion for not having the requisite qualification of B.A., which fact is no doubt is wrong, as is clear from Annexure 3.A of rejoinder affidavit wherein the Assistant Engineer has specifically mentioned that the petitioner has passed B.A. in 1979 and information to that effect was already sent to the Executive Engineer (Answering opposite parties) and the petitioner is qualified for holding the post of Data Processor for which the recommendation have been sent to the Executive engineer by him on the representation of the petitioner. These assertions have not been denied by the opposite parties by filing any reply as against the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner. The said fact of petitioner's having requisite qualification of B.A. is also confirmed from the letters dated 3.9.1977, 6.2.1979 of the Executive engineer as also from the mark sheet of B.A. II year 1979 issued by the Awadh vishvidyaiaya, Faizabad, wherein the petitioner has been shown to be passed B.A. in IInd Division and permission for the same was duly Recorded by the said Executive engineer. These documents were furnished by the petitioner along with the application-dated 11.5.1992 after the claim petition was heard and reserved on 6.5.1992 for delivery of judgment. All this clearly leads one to the conclusion that the petitioner was senior and qualified for promotion on the post of Data Processor on the dates when his junior were so promoted superseding him."

(3.) From the portion of the tribunal's order extracted above it appears that the tribunal has decided the issue Involved In favour of the petitioners and it found that the petitioner was not only qualified for the post of Data Processor but was also senior to the aforesaid Jagat Pratap Singh and Ram Saroj Chaubey. The operative part of the Tribunal's order directing the department to consider the petitioners case for promotion with consequential benefits has to be read in the light of this finding.