Yogendra Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt., Lko. and 2 Others

Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12390 of 2024

Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation And Water Resources Deptt., Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jogendra Nath Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

This Court had passed the following order on 19.12.2024:-

¶7

"1. Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is some ambiguity in the rule in regard to 25% quota of promotion from Group-C employees/technical cadre and Assistant Soil Conservator Inspector, therefore, the petitioners had filed Writ-A No.19046 of 2018 (Chandra Prakash Singh and 8 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) as the petitioners were not being considered for promotion on account of aforesaid rule. It was informed by the State that a proposal for amendment is pending, therefore, the writ petition was disposed of by means of the order dated 27.10.2018 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion as till the said date no amendment was made in the rules but the claim of the petitioners was rejected by means of the office order dated 12.07.2019 on the ground that the petitioners' diploma from distance education is not valid, whereas subsequently on a clarification sought by the respondent no.2, it has been informed by the Education Ministry of the Government of India vide letter dated 21.12.2021 that the recognition has been denied by means of the letter dated 31.05.2021 and the petitioners had done their diploma in the year 2013, therefore, they are eligible for promotion but the petitioners are not being considered and the promotions are being made issuing a list of eligible candidates by means of the letter dated 11.12.2020.

¶8

2. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the claim of the petitioners for promotion, in compliance of the order passed by the writ court in the writ petition filed by the petitioners was considered and they were not found eligible. Accordingly, their candidature was rejected by means of the order dated 12.07.2019 but the same has not been challenged till date.

¶9

3. So far as the letter dated 21.12.2021 contained in annexure no.5 is concerned, in regard to the same he seeks time to seek instructions.

¶10

4. As prayed by Shri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, put up tomorrow i.e. 20.12.2024 as fresh to enable him to seek complete instructions and produce the letter dated 21.12.2021, contained in annexure no.5 to the writ petition. "

¶11

In deference to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, Shri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 produced the original records containing the letter dated 21.12.2021, a copy of which has been placed on record along with the petition annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, which indicates that the date is 31 May, 2013 in the sixth line of the second paragraph, whereas the said date has been handwritten as 31.05.2021 in the annexure No. 5, therefore, this petition has been filed with fabrication in the date, to get the benefit, which is apparent from the arguments of petitioners' counsel recorded in the aforesaid order dated 19.12.2024, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this petition and it is liable to be dismissed with cost.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the date was not properly readable, therefore, his clerk has corrected the date inadvertently, whereas even if the date was not readable, it could not have been corrected by anybody for filing before this Court to get the benefit from the same.

¶13

Be that as it may no relief can be granted in this petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with a warning to be careful in future in filing the petitions and annexures.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.12.2024/Raj

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Yogendra Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt., Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt., Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rana Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Rishikesh Bhajpai and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 4 Others

Abhijit Roy Choudhury Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Diary Development Lko. and 2 Others

M/s Safety Controls and Devices Ltd. thru. its Authorized Representative Shri Prakash Chandra Joshi vs Construction and Design Services, Jal Nigam (Nagariya), Lucknow, through its Director, and 4 Others

Master Vishwam Dwivedi Thru. Maternal Grandfather Shri Sharda Prasad Tiwari and Anr. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Keshkali Thru. Her Husband Subhash vs Parikram @ Paikarma