Allowed

Sushmita Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2024/9729/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the petitioner's exclusion from a January 2024 promotion list due to uncertified educational documents, despite her case being considered by the DPC. The court held that once documents were verified as valid, the petitioner was eligible and directed the respondents to pass promotion orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be promoted to the post of Accountant within two weeks from the date of the order.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72749

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9729 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sushmita Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Sushmita Singh, petitioner in person as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶6

The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is with regard to her promotion to the post of Accountant w.e.f. 01.01.2024 when other similarly situated persons including her juniors have been promoted along with consequently benefits.

¶7

It has been submitted by petitioner that she is working on the post of Assistant Accountant since 2020 and is fully entitled and qualified to be promoted to the next higher post of Accountant. The DPC was duly constituted for the promotion to the post of Accountant where her candidature was duly considered but result of the DPC was published on 01.01.2024 where her name was missing and being aggrieved by the said order present writ petition has been filed.

¶8

This Court had directed learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel has received written instructions from the Director, Internal Audit and Accounts, Uttar Pradesh. According to which the candidature of the petitioner was duly considered and she was found to be fully eligible to be promoted to the next higher post of Accountant but only due to the fact that her documents pertaining to her educational qualifications were not certified, accordingly, no orders for promotion was passed.

¶10

It has further been submitted that subsequently her documents have been verified and are found in order and have stated that her orders for promotion would be passed in the next Departmental Promotion Committee meeting.

¶11

At this stage, petitioner submits that her case has been duly considered by the D.P.C. on 01.01.2024 alongwith similarly

¶12

situated persons who have been promoted, she should be given promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2024 and order should be passed by the same D.P.C. which has already considered her case for promotion along with other persons who have been promoted.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel could not justify the portion of the order by which it has been informed that the candidature of the petitioner would be considered in the next D.P.C.

¶14

Once the candidature of the petitioner has been duly considered by the D.P.C. and has been found to be qualified and only necessary orders for promotion could not be passed only to the fact that at that point of time her educational qualification documents could not be certified but subsequently relevant documents have been received from which it transpires that documents are in order and accordingly there is no infirmity for promoting her to the post of Accountant. Accordingly, it is a fit case for directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Accountant forthwith.

¶15

A D.P.C. once constituted has to consider all the candidates placed before it for consideration. The matter of petitioner was duly considered but no final decision was taken due to her educational certificates being not verified but, undisputedly the certificates ere thereafter verified.

¶16

Thus the matter would be deemed to be pending before the D.P.C. till a decision is taken one way or the other.

¶17

Let the said exercise be done by respondent No. 3, expeditiously, say, within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶18

In view of aforesaid observations / directions, the writ petition stands allowed .

¶19

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 4.11.2024 Ravi/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sushmita Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushmita Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko and 2 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

Ram Adhar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

Govind Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Rural Development Govt. of U.P. and 4 Others

Nagendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Sushmita Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko and 2 Others

Kunwar Brahma Prakash Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Shasi Kant Anan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 2 Others