MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned the order dated 28.8.2015 passed by the District Development Officer, Faizabad (Now Ayodhya Ji), by means of which he has been demoted to a Class-IV post, in pursuance of the Government Order No.8/4/1/2002 TC-1-Ka-2/2015 dated 21.8.2015.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Messenger (Patravahak) on 6.5.1994, in pursuance of the resolution passed by the District Level Selection Committee dated 28.4.1994, on a temporary basis. It was made clear that the appointment was completely temporary and could be dispensed with without giving any notice. The Government issued an order dated 31.8.1982 providing reservation to Class-IV employees upon promotion to the post of Class-III. According to the aforesaid Government Order, Class-IV employees who had completed five years of satisfactory regular service, are eligible for promotion, to the extent of 15% quota, to the lower class clerks in Class-III posts. The petitioner had completed five years continuous service on 5.5.1999, and according to the petitioner he was called by letter dated 19.9.2003 to participate in the interview for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk in Class-III. However, the interview could not be conducted on that date and the same was adjourned to 20.1.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Clerk vide order dated 3.2.2004. He was further promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 25.9.2006, again upon receiving the benefit of reservation. The petitioner's case is that he was promoted not against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, but as a general category candidate. However, from the letter dated 16.1.2004 (Annexure-6), it is evident that the promotion was made against the post reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been demoted to Class-IV post in pursuance to the Government Order No.8/4/1/2002 TC-1-Ka-2/2015 dated 21.8.2015.

(3.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others (2006) 8 SCC 212, wherein validity of Articles 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) was under challenge on the ground that these Articles violated the basic structure of the Constitution, has clearly laid down the law in relation to equal opportunity in employment. For the sake of convenience Articles 16 (4-A) and (4-B) are quoted herein under :-