VIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.S. Baghel holding brief of Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent and Sri K.R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed on the post of peon at District Treasury Office, Muzaffarnagar. His service was confirmed in 1992. On the promotion of Sri Mange Ram on 13 February 1996, one post of Assistant Treasury Accountant Grade-II1 (earlier nomenclature "Junior Clerk") fell vacant. Petitioner claims to possess the qualification and experience required under Rule 5(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Treasury Clerk Grade Services Rules, 19782. It appears that the claim of the petitioner for promotion was not considered, consequently, petitioner filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 34956 of 2008, which was disposed of on 31 July 2008 directing the District Magistrate-second respondent to decide the representation. The second respondent by the impugned order dated 10 October 2008 rejected the representation of the petitioner, inter alia, contending that the fourth respondent, Km. Vijay Arora, was appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules and the claim of the petitioner against the post is not genuine and lawful. Aggrieved, petitioner instituted the instant writ petition in December, 2008. The fourth respondent was impleaded on 20 July 2012, thereafter, by way of amendment, vide order dated 9 August 2012, an additional prayer and pleadings was incorporated seeking quashing of the order dated 21 October 1997 passed by the District Magistrate, transferring the fourth respondent on the post of Assistant Accountant and the consequential order dated 29 October 1997 passed by the Senior Treasury Officer, Saharanpur, on assumption of charge by the fourth respondent on the transferred post.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was eligible for promotion on the post of Assistant Accountant from the date of acquiring the minimum qualification in 1991; petitioner was continuously approaching the second respondent but nothing was done, consequently, he instituted the writ petition in 2008, which was disposed of and pursuant, the impugned order came to be passed by the second respondent. Petitioner got the writ petition amended in 2012 impleading the fourth respondent and assailing her appointment on the post of Assistant Accountant by way of transfer. It is further urged that under the Rules 1978, post of Assistant Accountant is to be filled by way of promotion from amongst group-D employees and not by direct recruitment; petitioner being fully eligible was entitled to be promoted. It is, therefore, urged that petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.