RAMESH KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Petitioners have approached this Court questioning the validity of the promotion dated 18-5-2006 accorded by the District Judge, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) promoting respondent Nos. 3 to 8 as Class III employee.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that petitioners are Class IV employee of District Judgeship, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi ). Petitioner No. 1 was appointed in Class IV cadre in the Judgeship on 19-2-1999 and petitioner No. 2 was appointed as such on 24-5- 2000. Since the date of their initial appointments, petitioners are discharging their duties as Class IV employee. In the month of April, 2003, applications were invited by the District Judge, Sant Ravidas Nagar from Class IV employees for consideration of their claim for promotion to Class III cadre. Written examination was to be held on 27-4-2003 which was re- scheduled and was held on 30-4-2003. Petitioners candidature was rejected on the ground that they were not eligible for promotion as Class III cadre due to lack of completion of five years service. On 30-4- 2003 select list of 39 candidates was prepared from promotion quota. On 5-5- 2003 select list so prepared, candidates who are placed at serial Nos. 1 and 2 were promoted immediately. On 24-12-2003 advertisement was issued for filling up three posts of Stenographer and 15 posts of clerk by way of direct recruitment. Said selection process was challenged by three sets of Class IV employee on the ground that improper excess quota for direct recruitment has been released.

(3.) IN the present case notices were issued to private respondent Nos. 3 to 8. Office report dated 19-10- 2006 shows that notices have been sent by registered post, neither acknowledgment nor undelivered cover has been received back. IN view of this, service on private respondent Nos. 3 to 8 is presumed to be sufficient. However Sri Pankaj Srivastava appeared and stated that he has instructions on behalf of said respondents.