UDAI BHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 2-5-1990 passed by U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 617/1/85 and the order dated 31-5-1991 passed on the Review Petition, wherein the claim of the petitioner for promotion with effect from initial date of appointment and the determination of seniority has been rejected.

(2.) The Petitioner Udai Bhan Singh was given temporary ad hoc appointment on the post of Lecturer in Electrical Engineering by order dated 20-8-1973. The appointment of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 400-900/- was to continue till a regularly selected candidate is made available or till further orders whichever is earlier. The ad hoc appointment of the petitioner continued and in the meantime the post of Lecturer in Electrical Engineering was advertised for regular appointment through U.P. Public Service Commission. The petitioner's candidature was considered and he was selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission. The U.P. Public Service Commission through letter dated 6-8-1979 submitted its recommendation in respect of 11 selected candidates in order of merit and the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 11 selected in the reserved category of dependents of Freedom Fighters. In the said selection 74 candidates had applied, out of which 62 candidates were called to interview. Only 33 candidates appeared for interview sometime in January, 1979 and thereafter list of selected candidates was recommended through letter dated 6-8-1979. The State Government through letter dated 29-1-1980 appointed S/Sir Om Prakash, respondent No. 4, Srikant Malviya, respondent No. 6, Ramesh Chandra Agrawal, Himmat Sahai, respondent No. 7, Anand Kumar Singh, respondent No. 5, Radhey Shyam Chaudhary, Vinod Chandra Sharma, respondent No. 9, Ram Surat Misra, respondent No. 8 and Chhotey Lal Katiyar, respondent No. 10. By another order dated 7-7-1981, the petitioner Udai Bhan Singh and Roop Lal Yadav, were also given regular appointment on the post of Lecturer, Electrical Engineering.

(3.) In the Claim Petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, the petitioner had also challenged the appointment of Sri Irfan Hussain and Sri D.M. Tripathi alleging that their initial appointment was later than the petitioner and they were wrongly promoted earlier overlooking the seniority of the petitioner. The U.P. Public Services Tribunal held that Sri D.M. Tripathi) and Irfan Hussain, had appeared before the U.P. Public Service Commission in regular selection in pursuance to the advertisement dated 7-7-1972 and they were selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission on 23-10-1973 and thereafter they were given appointment on the basis of the above selection. Both Sri D.M. Tripathi and Irfan Hussain have been held to be senior to the petitioner as they were regularly appointed and they were also promoted to the higher post which has also been held to be valid.