GOPAL KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Siddharth Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite the case having been called in revised list, none has appeared on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3 though the names of Sri Saurabh Singh and Sri K.R. Sirohi are shown in the cause list as counsels for the respondents. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondent no. 1 is present.

(2.) THE grievance of petitioner is that the respondent no. 3 was working in the cadre of Stenographer in District Judgeship, Deoria and, therefore, could not have been promoted either as Sadar Munsarim or as Senior Administrative Officer since the said posts were available for clerical staff only and in absence of suitable clerical staff, the persons working on the post of Stenographer could have been considered for such promotion but any such promotion could not be made without prior approval of the High Court. It is submitted that a selection committee was constituted by District Judge for regular promotion on the post of Sadar Munsarim and the said committee selected one Sri Sukhu Prasad for promotion to the post of Sadar Munsarim who was admittedly senior to the petitioner and it is in that view of the recommendation that the petitioner could not be promoted to the post of Sadar Munsarim. However instead of promoting Sri Sukhu Prasad, the District Judge passed order dated 15.09.2005 observing that the respondent no. 3, Sri Deen Bandhu Prasad working as Incharge Sadar Munsarim and Incharge Senior Administrative Officer he shall draw salary against the post of Sadar Munsarim. The order further says that it shall not create any right to Sri Deen Bandhu Prasad to confirm his claim on the post of Sadar Munsarim or Senior Administrative Officer as the matter is pending before the selection committee. Thereafter, he passed another order on 27.05.2006 appointing Sri Deen Bandhu Prasad as Sadar Munsarim on regular basis with all consequential benefits.

(3.) ON behalf of respondent no. 2 a counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been said in para 5 that the petitioner is wrong in saying that he is senior to respondent no. 3. However, instead of showing seniority list of the petitioner qua respondent no. 3, the District Judge in para 5 further says that the petitioner is junior to Sri Sukhu Prasad as per report of the selection committee dated 01.04.2006. He further says that under Rule 20(3) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "1947 Rules") the post of Sadar Munsarim is a selection post, promotion to which shall be based on "merit with the due regard to seniority". It is said that the case of petitioner for the post of Sadar Munsarim was considered by the committee on 29.07.2004 which did not find him suitable for promotion to the post of Sadar Munsarim and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any promotion on the post of Sadar Munsarim. It further says that against the order of District Judge dated 31.07.2003, by which the respondent no. 3 was made Incharge Sadar Munsarim, no objection was filed by Sri Sukhu Prasad who was senior to petitioner. It further says that the order of District Judge directing the respondent no. 3 to continue to the work as Incharge Sadar Munsarim does not confer any right upon him since according to Rule inchargeship does not confer any right to the person concerned. But then it is said the order dated 27.05.2006 has been passed in consonance with the report dated 01.04.2006 submitted by the selection committee and thereafter the respondent no. 3 has been further promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Officer on 28.07.2006.