Disposed

Sandeep Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Administrative Reforms, Govt. U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024WRIA/1310/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging DPC recommendations of 20.12.2023 promoting by merit contrary to the 1994 Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion Rules which override Rule 16 of the 1990 Office Inspection Service Rules. State could not distinguish the cited Udai Ram precedent. Interim order directs respondents not to issue any promotion order until next listing.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction: respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to issue any promotion order pursuant to the DPC held on 20.12.2023 till next listing.

Sandeep Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1310 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Administrative Reforms, Govt. U.P. Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,Akshat Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya)

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

This Court had passed an interim order dated 21.02.2024 which is quoted below:-

¶6

" 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings and recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 20.12.2023 for granting promotion on the post of Inspector in the office of Chief Inspector Government Office, Prayagraj on the basis of Uttar Pradesh Office Inspection Service Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'Service Rules, 1990') where the criteria for grant of promotion is on the basis of merit which is against the law as Rule 2 of U.P. Government Servants Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1994') have overridden the Rule 16 of the Service Rules, 1990.

¶7

2. The promotion is to be considered as per Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994 i.e. by seniority subject to rejection of unfit and in support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 21.01.2011 reported in Udai Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.793 of 2009, where the matter pertains to the Transport Department who were also having their Service Rules, namely, U.P. Parivahan Sewa Niyamawali,1990 and Rule 16 of the said Niyamawali is in verbatim the same as Rule 16 in the Service Rules governed the services of the petitioner. This Court has held that the Rules, 1994 are special Rules governing the field and clearly override Rule 16, which provides the criteria of merit for promotion on the post of ARTO.

¶8

3. It is further submitted that the controversy in the present case has already attained finality by the judgment as mentioned above hence the petitioner is entitled for the parity of the same.

¶9

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and Shri Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission pray for a week's time to seek instructions in the matter.

¶10

5. List this case in the next week as fresh. "

¶11

In pursuance of the interim order, as mentioned above, learned State Counsel and learned counsel representing the respondent no. 3 were required to seek instructions.

¶12

On the basis of instructions, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted that Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) has been conducted as per the requisition of the State Government but not ready to inform that whether it was on the basis of seniority or on the basis of merit. Despite repeated requests of the Court to give specific reply during dictation of the order he has submitted that DPC was held on the basis of merit not on the basis of seniority as per the requisition and papers have been forwarded to the State Government

¶13

Learned State Counsel and learned counsel for respondent no. 3 are unable to distinguish the Division Bench judgment relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner in Udai Ram case (supra) where the Division Bench of this Court had held that U.P. Government Servants Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 governing the field and overrides Rule 16 of the U.P Parivahan Sewa Niyamawali, 1990 which provides the criterion of merits for promotion and it is in verbatim the same as Rule 16 in the Service Rules governing the services of the petitioner.

¶14

Learned State Counsel on being asked by this Court whether the promotion orders have been passed or not, he has submitted that no promotion orders have been issued till date.

¶15

As prayed, two weeks' time is granted to learned State Counsel and learned counsel for respondent no. 3 for filing counter affidavit and one weeks' time is granted to learned counsel for petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

List immediately after the expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, respondent no. 1 and 2 are directed not to issue any promotion order in pursuance of the DPC held on 20.12.2023 for granting promotion on the post of Inspector in the office of Chief Inspector Government Office, Prayagraj.

¶18

Order Date :- 28.2.2024 DiVYa

¶19

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Administrative Reforms, Govt. U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Administrative Reforms, Govt. U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pintu Alias Sher Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Shahid @ Kallan @ Shahid Ali Sekh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secy. U.P. Lko. and Another

Chheda Lal @ Chheda vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Madan Nag vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiv Dayal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 3 Others

Shafiq vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others