UMESH CHANDRA AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Alok Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7, Sri Ved Vyas Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Notice has been accepted on behalf of respondent no. 2 by Sri Jainendra Pandey, holding brief of Sri Neeraj Tripathi. Sri Rajesh Yadav, Advocate has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 9. However, no one is present on behalf of the said respondent.

(2.) This writ petition assails the order of the Chancellor deciding a dispute of seniority by the impugned order dated 19th February, 2009 whereby the respondent no. 9 has been declared to be senior as against the petitioner on account of his being senior in age as they had been appointed substantively on the same date i.e. 1st December, 1980.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid finding by the Chancellor is against record and is perverse inasmuch as the date of substantive appointment of the petitioner is 1st December, 1980 as approved vide order dated 23rd December, 1981 for which reliance has been placed, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition whereas the appointment of the respondent no. 9 was on ad-hoc basis with effect from 14th February, 1982 as per the approval order dated 24th March, 1982. He was further given the benefit of substantive appointment after relaxation in his qualification with effect from 5th April, 1983. The contention is that it is only from the date of grant of relaxation or exemption from qualification that the respondent no. 9 would have an accrued right of substantive appointment and not from any date prior to that which was only on ad hoc basis.