B C MALVIYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 4th April, 2006 (Annexure-25) by which the respondent No. 4 has been granted seniority over and above the present petitioners.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petition ers as well as the respondent No. 4 had been working as Auditor. THE respondent No. 4 was senior to the present petitioners as he had been appointed prior to them on the post of Auditor. THE respondent No. 4 was promoted on ad- hoc basis as Senior Auditor but was reverted to the post of Auditor because of the adverse entries given to him. During regular selection for promotion to the post of Senior Auditor he was found unsuitable and therefore superseded. THE present petition ers who were junior to the said respondent No. 4 in the feeding cadre were se lected and appointed on 3-5-1983 on the post of Senior Auditor on the recommen dation of the Departmental Promotion Committee on regular basis. THE respon dent No. 4 being aggrieved challenged the adverse entries by filing a claim peti tion before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal. However, the tribunal refused to quash the adverse entries vide its judgment and order dated 1st March, 1982. Being aggrieved he preferred the Writ Petition No. 2147 of 1982. THE same was decided vide judgment and order dated 22-2-1989. While deciding the said case, High Court directed the respondents-State to consider his case for regular promotion from the date persons junior to him i. e. petitioners were promoted within the stipulated period. In pursuance to the said judgment and order of this Court dated 22-2-1989, the case of the respondent No. 4 for promotion with back date was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 6-8-1985. He was how ever granted promotion w. e. f. 6-8-1985 only. Being aggrieved the said respondent No. 4 filed Writ Petition No. 6074 of 1989 seeking promotion from back date. Petition was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 23rd March, 1992. THE said judgment and order was not challenged further and attained finality. It appears that the respondent No. 4 subsequently made some representation for determining his seniority as per the Uttar Pradesh (Local Fund) Audit Subordi nate Rules, 1985 (hereinafter called the 'rules 1985') and not on the basis of Uttar Pradesh (Local Fund) Audit Subordinate Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called the 'rules 1969' ). As the Rules 1985 provided that on being promoted on the post of Senior Auditor the inter se seniority of the officers shall be maintained as per their inter se seniority in the feeding cadre. This representation has been allowed vide impugned order hence this writ petition.

(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.