Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 720 (ALL)

Suman Kumar Srivastava v. Collector, Lucknow

1988-08-18

R.K.SAXENA, S C.MATHUR

body1988
JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - Both these petitions are directed against the orders reverting the petitioners from the post of Land Records Inspector to the post of Lekhpal. The petitioners in both the petitions were posted under Collector, Lucknow. 2. Suman Kumar Srivastava approached this Court claiming that he had been reverted to the post of Lekhpal while juniors to him had been retained on the post of Land Records Inspector. He mentioned the names of Swami Dayal, Radhey Lal, Om Prakash and Reva Shanker Pandey as juniors who had been retained on the higher post. The writ petition was admitted and a interim order was passed staying the operation of the order of reversion dated 15.10.1987. During the pendency of Suman Kumar Srivastava's writ petition one Asharfi Lal who had been directly appointed to the post of Land Records Inspector (Bhoolekh Nirikshak) was posted in district Lucknow. In order to accommodate him Om Prakash was reverted to the post of Lekhpal. This brought Om Prakash before this Court through writ petition no. 4908 of 1988. His claim was that Suman Kumar Srivastava was junior to him and, therefore, he cannot be reverted from the post of Land Records Inspector retaining juniors to him on the said post. A few facts necessary for the disposal of the two petitions may be stated. 3. According to the averments made in the writ petition of Suman Kumar Srivastava, he was appointed to the post of Lekhpal in the year 1977. On 20.3.83, he was promoted to the post of Land Records Inspector. By Order dated 26.4.1983, he was sought to be reverted to the post of Lekhpal. At this stage, he approached this Court though writ petition no. 333 of 1983. The petition was dismissed by order dated 20.9.1984. The learned counsel for the State has produced before us a photostat copy of the order dated 5.10.1987 which shows that Suman Kumar Srivastava had approached their Lordships of the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court. His special Leave Petition was dismissed. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for Suman Kumar Srivastava. Thereafter on 15.10.1987, the present impugned order was passed reverting Suman Kumar Srivastava to the post of Lekhpal. A copy of this order is Annexure4 to writ petition no. 7815 of 1987. His special Leave Petition was dismissed. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for Suman Kumar Srivastava. Thereafter on 15.10.1987, the present impugned order was passed reverting Suman Kumar Srivastava to the post of Lekhpal. A copy of this order is Annexure4 to writ petition no. 7815 of 1987. (In the impugned order itself, Suman Kumar Srivastava has been described as the juniormost Lekhpal in the district. 4. There is no dispute between the parties that promotion of the petitioner Suman Kumar Srivastava and of opposite parties 3 to 6, namely, Swami Dayal, Radhey Lal, Om Prakash and Reva Shanker Pandey to the post of Land Records Inspector was in adhoc capacity. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that in the cadre of Lekhpals, Om Prakash is senior to Suman Kumar Srivastava. He was unable to admit the seniority of other opposite parties as he did not possess the dates of appointments of the said opposite parties. However, from Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition, it appears that opposite party no. 3 Swami Dayal is also senior to the petitioner, Annexure no. 3 is copy of order whereby the petitioner was posted in local arrangement in place of Swami Dayal who was sent for training to Hardoi. This order was passed on 22.6.1983. At the time the order was passed, Swami Dayal was already holding the post of Land Records Inspector which was then known as Supervisor Qanoongo. From the material on record, it is apparent that the petitioner's claim of seniority against Swami Dayal and Om Prakash is absolutely misconceived. The petitioner has tried to claim seniority on the basis of earlier appointment in local arrangement to the post of Land Records Inspector. In our opinion, this is an entirely misconceived way of reckoning seniority. Whenever postings are made on a higher post in local arrangement and thereafter occasion to revert arises, the juniormost in the substantive or lower cadre will have to be reverted. It will be anomalous to continue a person junior in the substantive cadre, in the higher cadre and reverting the senior person to the lower cadre. Appointment to higher post on ad hoc basis or in local arrangement creates no right to hold the higher post. 5. It will be anomalous to continue a person junior in the substantive cadre, in the higher cadre and reverting the senior person to the lower cadre. Appointment to higher post on ad hoc basis or in local arrangement creates no right to hold the higher post. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner was given prior promotion in view of his higher educational qualification and merit. This so called promotion order dated 2251983, Annexure3, specifically states, while posting him in place of Swami Dayal, that the arrangement is local. 6. In the writ petition, Suman Kumar Srivastava has not given the dates of appointment of himself and of opposite parties 3 to 6 in the cadre of Lekhpal. He has also not stated that in the cadre of Lekhpals he was senior to the said opposite parties. He has, therefore, laid no foundation for the claim of seniority over opposite parties 3 to 6. As already indicated, his learned counsel has conceded seniority to atleast one opposite party, namely, Om Prakash. While adjusting Asharfi Lal, Suman Kumar Srivastava was obviously not touched because of the interim order of this Court. If this interim order has not been there, in all likelihood, Om Prakash would not have been touched. 7. It appears that in the district of Lucknow two persons were to be adjusted on the post of Land Records Inspector; one was Radhey Lal whose suspension order had been revoked and Asharfi Lal who had been directly recruited. Obviously, two ad hoc appointees to the post of Inspector will have to revert to the post of Lekhpal. One of them is Suman Kumar Srivastava and, therefore, his writ Petition as stated earlier will have to be dismissed. The exact seniority position of Om Prakash is not before us. If he is the next juniormost after Suman Kumar Srivastava, the order of his reversion will have to be maintained. But in the absence of sufficient material, we only direct the concerned authorities, to consider his case in the light of the observation made herein. 8. The impugned order against Suman Kumar Srivastava has been passed in order to reinstate opposite party no. 4 Radhey Lal who had been suspended during domestic enquiry. The petitioner has not indicated the date on which Radhey Lal was appointed as Lekhpal. 8. The impugned order against Suman Kumar Srivastava has been passed in order to reinstate opposite party no. 4 Radhey Lal who had been suspended during domestic enquiry. The petitioner has not indicated the date on which Radhey Lal was appointed as Lekhpal. In the absence of this date, it cannot be said that Radhey Lal is junior to the Petitioner. When a senior person is reinstated, obviously the juniormost will have to revert. It is not the petitioner's case that he is not the juniormost in the cadre of Lekhpal. Accordingly, writ petition of Suman Kumar Srivastava is liable to be dismissed. 9. So far as the writ petition of Om Prakash Srivastava is concerned, his reversion is based on the appointment of a regularly selected candidate land his posting in the district. Obviously, a regularly selected candidate has better claim of posting than a person promoted on adhoc basis. Accordingly, we cannot say that the order of reversion passed against Suman Kumar Srivastava is bad in law. But this is subject to the qualification that he is the juniormost. From the impugned order of reversion passed against Suman Kumar Srivastava it appears that Om Prakash is not the juniormost; it is the former. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition of Suman Kumar Srivastava is hereby dismissed and the writ petition of Om Prakash is disposed of with the observation made hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders shall stand discharged. (Order accordingly )