PITAMBER LAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims to have joined the U. P. Agriculture service class II as Soil Conservation Officer in 1967. Subsequently pursuant to his selection by the U. P. Public Service Commission the petitioner was appointed as Soil Conservation Officer on regular basis. In January, 1974 he was confirmed on the said post. The Government of U. P. vide order dated 6-7-1984 appointed him in a stop-gap arrangement as officiating Deputy Director of Agriculture (Soil Conservation) which is a Class I post in the Agriculture service, with a condition that although he will perform work of Class I post but he will be paid salary of Class II post only. Pursuant to the above order he was posted as Deputy Director of Agriculture (Soil Conservation) in Ramganga Command Area Fatehpur. Latter on he was transferred from Fatehpur to Lalitpur In the same capacity. By order dated 3-8-1986 he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture (Soil Conservation) on ad hoc basis. By order dated 16-3-1988 he was granted selection grade by the State Government. However, by an order dated 12-10-1988 an adverse entry was recorded in his character roll by the State Government which was communicated to him by the Director of Agriculture by letter dated 29-10-1988. Against the said adverse entry the petitioner filed representation dated 9-12-1938 before the State Government. As his representation remained undisposed inspite of reminders sent by him he filed writ petition No. nil on 1991 before this Court which was disposed of on 11-11-1991 directing the Government to decide his representation within ten days from the date of presentation of certified copy of this Court order before it. It has been stated that the petitioner filed the certified copy of the said order passed by this Court before the respondents on 25-11-1991, but even then his representation was not disposed of and the Government passed an order dated December 19, 1991 reverting him from Class ) to Class II) post on the ground that he was not found suitable for promotion to Class I post. By another order of the same date other Class II officers have been promited, to Class I posts. Being aggrieved by those two orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) While entertaining this writ petition this Court on 7-1-1992 granted a month's time to learned Standing Counsel, who represents the respondents the respondents, to file counter-affidavit. On the same date this Court also granted an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order dated 19-12-1991 until further order of the Court. The respondents did not file counter-affidavit. On 5-7-1996 this Court granted one month and no more time to learned Standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit. Inspite of the stop order the counter-affidavit has not been filed. The result is that the averments made in the writ petition are liable to be taken as correct. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has made three submission in support of the writ petition, viz. (i) As the petitioner was promited on officiating basis in 1984 to Class I post in Agriculture Department and has been working since then in that post, his promotion was liable to be regularised under the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Promition (on the post within purview of the Public Service Commisssion) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules); (ii) It is not open to the respondents to reject petitioner's claim for promotion on the basis of adverse entry against which the representation fifed by him was disposed of till then ; and (iii) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the reversion of the petitioner from Class I to Class II post was arbitrary and unjustified.