Allowed

Ashish Kumar Panday and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2019WRIA/2433/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of writ petition seeking declaration of promotion results. Relying on completed enquiry report finding no irregularity, court directed respondents to issue appointment letters within one month. Appointments remain subject to final outcome of related writ petition by Suresh Chandra Yadav.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to issue appointment letters to petitioners within one month; appointments subject to pending Writ A No.17610 of 2016.

Ashish Kumar Panday and 2 Others Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2433 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Panday And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Gaurav Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to issue a mandamus directing the respondent no.4/Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Works Allahabad to declare the result of the petitioner pertaining to his promotion from Class IV to Class III post (Junior Clerk) under 20% promotion quota.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were appointed on Class IV post in the year 2009 and as per the departmental rules if Class IV employee has completed five years satisfactory service then he became entitled for his promotion from Class IV to Class III. All the petitioners have completed five years satisfactorily service and as such they became entitled for their promotion under 20% promotion quota. In this regard petitioners were also directed to appear in the typing test along-with various other persons. The petitioners duly appeared in the tying tests held in the year 2015. It is further contended that apart from the typing test the petitioners were also participated in the written examination as well as interview. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a letter dated 24.9.2015 written by the respondent no.4 stating therein that the petitioners were duly found selected in the examination in question. Since the results of the petitioners were not declared, they approached the respondents on various occasions but when no action was taken the petitioners have preferred a Writ A No.980 of 2016 (Rameshwar Prasad Mishra and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) before this Court. The said writ petition was finally decided vide judgement and order dated 22.1.2016. The judgement is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶8

"Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vikram Bahadur, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶9

Petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners in the matter of promotion from Class-IV to Class-III under the 20% quota.

¶10

On 12.1.2016 the Court had directed the learned standing counsel to obtain instructions.

¶11

On instructions received learned standing counsel informs that an enquiry has been set up in the matter of the selection which is still pending and it is for this reason that the result could not be declared.

¶12

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.3, Chief Engineer, Sharda Sahayak Irrigation Department, Ganga Sinchai Bhawan, Teili Bag, Lucknow to ensure the completion/conclusion of the enquiry within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.

¶13

It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits."

¶14

It is contended that inspite of the aforesaid order although the copy of the same was communicated but no further action was taken by the respondents as such petitioners have preferred present writ petition.

¶15

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents it is contended in paragraph 8 that due to pendency of enquiry it is not possible to declare the result. The relevant portion of paragraph 8 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶16

"Thus, due to pendency of enquiry it is not possible to declare the results at that time inasmuch as it could affect the result. For Kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court true copy of letter order dated 04.09.2015 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A.-15 to this affidavit."

¶17

In paragraph 9 of the rejoinder affidavit it is stated that Enquiry Officer has already concluded the enquiry and submitted its report on 01.2.2016 and no irregularity was found by him while submitting his enquiry report in so far as the selection of the petitioners are concerned. The copy of the enquiry report dated 1.2.2016 is appended as annexure 1 to the rejoinder affidavit.

¶18

In view of the same, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to declare the results of the petitioners and thereafter, petitioners be permitted to function on their promotional posts of Class III.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present

¶21

writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

¶22

From perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioners duly participated in the departmental examinations for their promotion from Class IV to Class III posts. The aforesaid examinations were held in the year 2015. Although the petitioners were duly found selected but due to pendency of an enquiry the petitioners were not issued their letter of appointment. Now the enquiry report has already been submitted on 1.2.2016 in which nothing was found against the petitioners. It is unfortunate that inspite of the fact that favourable enquiry report has already been submitted in favour of petitioners they were not issued the letter of appointment of Class III posts.

¶23

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of finally directing the respondents to issue appointment letters to the petitioners in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶24

Apart from the present writ petition a writ petition was also filed by one Suresh Chandra Yadav being Writ A No.17610 of 2016 with the prayer to quash the examinations in question as well as results dated 2.3.2015 with further prayer to conduct fresh typing examination. Further prayer was made to issue a mandamus directing the respondents to conduct a high level enquiry about the irregularities and corruptions in the promotion and punish the guilty persons. In so far as the enquiry part is concerned, as stated above enquiry has already been conducted and the report has already been submitted on 1.2.2016 and as such in the present case the petitioners became entitled for their appointment on their promotional posts.

¶25

Since the writ petition filed by Suresh Chandra Yadav being Writ A No.17610 of 2016 is still pending, it is made clear that the appointments of the petitioners in the present case will be subject to the final outcome of Writ A No.17610 of 2016.

¶26

Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

Order Date :- 8.8.2019 Pramod Tripathi

Ashish Kumar Panday and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar Panday and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Shree Devi Yadava Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Ram Chandra Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Ram Bhagat Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Rajeev Kumar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Devendra Kumar Posti Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Akhilesh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others