Allowed

Kushal Pal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Sugar Industries and Cane Development U.P. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC21 May 2024/114/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal and quashed a Single Judge order directing a Review DPC for promotion. It held that the petitioner failed to implead other candidates promoted earlier, rendering the order vitiated due to non-feasance in hearing affected parties. The Writ Petition is remanded for reconsideration after impleadment.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.04.2024 is set aside. The Writ Petition is remanded to the Single Judge for reconsideration after impleading affected persons.

Kushal Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38433-DB

¶3

Chief Justice's Court

¶4

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 114 of 2024

¶5

Appellant :- Kushal Pal Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. though Prin. Secy. Deptt. Sugar Industries and Cane Development U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Akshat Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., V.P. Nag (S.C.), Abhinav Trivedi, Raj Kumar Upadhyaya, Ran Vijay Singh, U.N. Misra (Sr. Adv.) with Neel Kamal Mishra

¶6

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant made an oral prayer seeking permission to file appeal. Looking to the nature of the case and the fact that the office has missed to raise objection, the prayer is accepted. The appellant is allowed to appeal against the order impugned.

¶8

This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.04.2024, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ - A No. 1305 of 2024, whereby while accepting the writ petition filed by respondent No. 5, the State has been directed to send the complete records of respondent No. 5 to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission') and the Commission has been directed to convene Review Departmental Promotion Committee meeting for consideration of claim of respondent No. 5 within a period of two weeks, whereafter suitable orders, based on the recommendation, would be passed.

¶9

The respondent No. 5 filed the writ petition seeking direction to the State to send his name along with Annual Confidential Reports including the entries made by Basic Education Officer for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 to the Commission for consideration of his

¶10

¶11

case for promotion on the post of Sugarcane Inspector cum Assistant Sugar Commissioner. The writ petition remained pending. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for appropriate directions on 04.03.2024, inter alia , bringing on record the subsequent events, whereby on 29.02.2024, an order according promotion to nine persons was passed, which included the appellant herein. Prayer was made in the application to restrain the respondents from implementing the order dated 29.02.2024 and to restrain the respondents from issuing any normal promotion/posting orders in terms of Office Order dated 29.02.2024 till such time that his name for promotion on the post of Sugarcane Inspector cum Assistant Sugar Commissioner was considered in accordance with law. The application remained pending and after hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition passing the order as noticed hereinbefore.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that by order dated 29.02.2024, he was promoted along with eight other persons. Under the directions given by the learned Single Judge for holding the Review DPC, in case the respondent No. 5 was to be promoted, the same would affect their order of promotion dated 29.02.2024. Further submissions have been made that once the fact of passing of the order dated 29.02.2024 had come on record of the writ petition, before passing the order for holding Review DPC, it was incumbent on the respondent No. 5 to implead the appellant/others likely to be affected persons as party respondent to the said writ petition, submissions have been made that in absence of the appellant/others likely to be affected persons in view of the passing of the order dated 29.02.2024, the order passed by learned Single Judge directing holding of Review DPC stands vitiated and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.

¶13

¶14

Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 made vehement submissions that the appellant has no cause qua the directions issued by learned Single Judge for correcting the mistake committed by the respondents, while sending the record of the ACR to the Commission, which resulted in the respondent No. 5 being deprived of promotion. Submissions have been made that the learned Single Judge has only directed the respondents for sending of the correct/complete record to the Commission and the Commission has been directed to hold the Review DPC, which direction cannot be faulted in the circumstances of the case. Submissions have also been made that merely because during the pendency of the petition order dated 29.02.2024 came to be passed, it was not necessary that the appellant was required to be heard before passing of the order impugned and therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal.

¶15

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶16

The facts are not in dispute wherein the writ petition was filed seeing a direction for sending the complete ACRs to the Commission for consideration of the name of the respondent No. 5 for promotion on the post of Sugarcane Inspector cum Assistant Sugar Commissioner. The petition, as noticed, remained pending, however, during the pendency of the petition, on 29.02.2024, promotions were accorded based on the recommendations made by the DPC, wherein appellant along with eight others was promoted. The respondent No. 5 promptly brought the said order on record, sought directions qua the said order, i.e, restraint against the respondents from implementing the said order and passing of posting orders qua those promoted.

¶17

Once, during the pendency of the petition, the order dated 29.02.2024, according promotion was passed, in all fairness, it was

¶18

¶19

required of the respondent No. 5 to have impleaded those promoted as party respondents to the writ petition. It is not the case of the respondent No. 5 that in case, the Review DPC is held and he is accorded promotion, based on his merit, on account of taking in consideration of the complete ACRs, none of the nine persons, who have been promoted by order dated 29.02.2024, would be affected. However, apparently, despite bringing on record the order of promotion, the further required steps were not taken and the impleadment did not take place. Apparently, despite making the application seeking further directions, the fact of passing of the order dated 29.02.204 was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge as there is no mention of the order dated 29.02.2024 in the order impugned and the same resulted in passing of the order for holding of Review DPC/consideration of the claim of the respondent No. 5 'along with others'.

¶20

Once the consequence of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby directions were given to hold Review DPC, is that one of the nine persons, who were promoted by order dated 29.02.2024, would be affected/is likely to be affected, the directions dated 18.04.2024 for holding Review DPC, apparently, could not have been passed without impleading them as party respondent.

¶21

In view of the above fact situation, the order dated 18.04.2024, passed by learned Single Judge, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed . The order dated 18.04.2024 is set aside. The Writ - A No. 1305 of 2024 is remanded to learned Single Judge for reconsideration of the matter, after those affected on account of passing of the order dated 29.04.2024 are impleaded by the petitioner as party respondents to the writ petition.

¶22

Looking to the nature of the matter, the urgency on part of the respondent No. 5 and the fact that the appellant, on account of

¶23

¶24

passing of the order dated 29.02.2024, may seek to delay in disposal of the writ petition, it is expected that the matter shall be dealt with utmost expedition. The parties, including the appellant, shall appear before the learned Single Judge on 29.05.2024. Order Date :- 21.5.2024 Mukesh Pal/P.Sri.

¶25

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kushal Pal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Sugar Industries and Cane Development U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kushal Pal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Sugar Industries and Cane Development U.P. Lko. and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Ram Kumar Shukla vs C/M Rashtriya Inter College, Ranapur , Barabanki Thru. Its Manager Sunil Kumar and Others

Akshay Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko. and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture and Food Processing U.P. Lko. and Others Vs Ram Milan Yadav

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture and Food Processing U.P. Lko. and Others vs Ram Milan Yadav

Kushal Pal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Sugar Industries and Cane Development U.P. Lko. and Others