Dismissed

Avesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2022WRIA/1209/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the refusal of a promotion claim, the High Court held that the petitioner was ineligible because the relevant vacancy arose before his five-year engagement period. Consequently, the writ was dismissed without interference. No interference was also warranted due to the DIOS's failure to forward papers, as there was no substantive right to promotion.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the rejection of his promotion claim was dismissed.

Avesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1209 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Avesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jata Shankar,Sanjai Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjai Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Saxena learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

Challenge has been raised to the communication dated 15.10.2019 issued by the District Inspector of School, Muzaffar Nagar refusing to entertain the claim for promotion made by the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (History/Sociology) at Modern Inter College, Ramraj, Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, it cannot be disputed that the post of Lecturer (History/Sociology) fell vacant at the above described institution on 01.7.2002 upon the retirement of one Sukhpal Singh. It is also undisputed that the petitioner first came to be appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Assistant Teacher on 01.11.2007. In view of the above noted fact, vacancy in question arose during the recruitment year 2002-03 as against the first engagement of the petitioner on 30.10.2001. Therefore, on the first day of the recruitment year, petitioner cannot claim to have work experience of five years necessary for consideration for promotion on the post of Lecturer.

¶8

Further objection of learned counsel for the petitioner that the post being for two subjects (History/Sociology), same cannot be filled up by direct recruitment, is found to be of no avail. If it is to be assumed, for any purpose and for any reason that the post

¶9

in question was one which would require double qualifications to teach subjects History and Sociology, that may be taken care of at the stage of advertisement and during the course of selection.

¶10

Insofar as the petitioner was ineligible on the relevant date, the claim for promotion made by him is found to be without basis.

¶11

In view of the above, no interference is warranted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The fact that the DIOS has not forwarded the papers to the promotion Committee is of no consequence in absence of any right shown by the petitioner to promotion claimed.

¶12

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 11.11.2022 Faraz

¶14

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.11.11 19:12:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Avesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Rajni Kumari Lecturer (History)/ in-Charge Principal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shri Krishna Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Uma Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tej Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar Yadav Vs State of U P and 2 Others