Disposed

Shivankar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt., Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2024WRIA/9010/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged reversion from Senior Assistant to Junior Assistant based on assumed lack of typing speed eligibility. Court prima facie found force in petition submissions and stayed the impugned order while allowing time for respondents to file an affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14.09.2024 stayed; respondents granted time to file affidavit.

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

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9010 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Shivankar Singh

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Irrigation And Water Resources Deptt., Lucknow And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jogendra Nath Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. R. K. Upadhyaya, Advocate, holding brief on behalf of Mr. Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 14.09.2024 whereby petitioner has been reverted from post of Senior Assistant to that of Junior Assistant on ground that he did not fulfil eligibility of 25 words per minute typing speed while appointed on post of Junior Assistant.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on 22.07.2014 on the post of Junior Assistant. Admittedly no typing test was taken from him. He however submits that subsequently petitioner was promoted on post of Senior Assistant in year 2019 on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee on being found eligible and qualified for such promotion. It is submitted that impugned order therefore has been passed after ten years of his initial appointment and five years after his promotion. It is also submitted that impugned order has been passed erroneously merely on assumption that petitioner did not fulfil aforesaid eligibility at the time of initial appointment in year 2014 although no such test was admittedly ever taken. It is further submitted that promotional post of Senior Assistant on which petitioner is functioning for the past more than five years does not entail any typing work and therefore it is but natural

¶9

that petitioner would not qualify in any such typing test. In the alternative, it is submitted that even otherwise if petitioner is required to take such a typing test, there was no occasion for opposite parties to have first reverted him to post of Junior Assistant and then to have taken the typing test.

¶10

Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner but submits that if liberty is granted, such a typing test can be held while petitioner is holding the post of Senior Assistant but submits that the essential eligibility qualification is nonetheless required to be fulfilled by petitioner as prescribed under the Rules.

¶11

Prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner appear to have force and require consideration for which opposite parties are granted a weeks' time to file a short affidavit.

¶12

Connect and list this case along with WRIT - A No. - 9002 of 2024, as fresh.

¶13

Till the next date of listing, impugned order dated 14.09.2024 shall remain stayed.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.10.2024 kvg/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shivankar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt., Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivankar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt., Lucknow and Another

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

Dilip Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

Raj Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. High Education Lko. and 7 Others

Siddharth Misra vs State of U.P. Thu. Prin. Secy Secondary Education Lko and 3 Others

Shree Lalji Energy Foods Pvt. Ltd.Thru Its Authorized Representative vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Bal Viaks Sewa Evam Pushtahar Vibhag Lko and Anr.

Manish Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Govt. Lko. and 6 Others