Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1206 (ALL)

Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Director Of Local Bodies

2002-09-06

S.P.MEHROTRA

body2002
JUDGMENT : - S.P.Mehrotra 1. THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner was appointed on the post of pump operator on 12.3.1996, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is, inter alia, further alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner made an application dated 27.11.1999 before the District Magistrate, Chandauli, inter alia, praying that he should be permitted to perform the functions of Jal Kal clerk instead of working as pump operator. On the said application dated 27.11.1999, the District Magistrate, Chandauli, called for report. A copy of the said application dated 27.11.1999 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 2. IT is, inter alia, further alleged that pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the District Magistrate, Chandauli calling for the report on the said application dated 27.11.1999, the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Chandauli, submitted his report dated 8.12.1999, a copy whereof has been filed, as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the said report, it was, inter alia, recommended that the petitioner should be permitted to perform the functions of the Jal Kal clerk also in addition to the working of his original post. It is, inter alia, further alleged in paragraph No. 4, of the writ petition that pursuant to the said recommendation, the District Magistrate, Chandauli, gave his approval on 9.12.1999. 3. IT is, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner has completed more than five years of service since his appointment on the post of pump operator on 12.3.1996. IT is, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to Class III post on the basis of the Government order dated 4.12.2001, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 4. IT is alleged that the petitioner has moved an application dated 2.5.2002 before the District Magistrate, Chandauli, inter alia, praying for being promoted to the post of clerk on the basis of the said Government order dated 4.12.2001. A copy of the said application dated 2.5.2002 has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. One of the reliefs claimed herein is that the respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Chandauli) be directed to decide the said representation/application dated 2.5.2002 filed by the petitioner within a fixed period. 5. A copy of the said application dated 2.5.2002 has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. One of the reliefs claimed herein is that the respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Chandauli) be directed to decide the said representation/application dated 2.5.2002 filed by the petitioner within a fixed period. 5. HAVING considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and keeping in view prayer (a) made in the writ petition, I am of the opinion that it would be just and proper to direct the respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Chandauli) to decide the said representation/application dated 2.5.2002 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the said representation/application dated 2.5.2002 as well as a copy of the writ petition before respondent No. 2 by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. 6. THE writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Chandauli) to decide the said representation/ application dated 2.5.2002 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the said representation/application dated 2.5.2002 as well as a copy of this writ petition before the respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Chandauli) by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. It is made clear that no directions are being given on the merits of the representation/ application filed by the petitioner, as it is for the respondent No. 2 to take appropriate decision in this regard, inter alia, considering whether the Government order dated 4.12.2001 is applicable to the present case, whether there is any vacancy on the post of clerk to be filled by promotion, whether the concerned department has decided to fill-up such vacancy/vacancies by promotion, whether the petitioner fulfils the eligibility requirements and qualifications for promotion to the post of clerk, whether there are other eligible candidates to be considered for promotion to the post of clerk, what is the procedure and norms in the relevant rules etc., for making promotion. It may be further added that the occasion for considering the petitioner for promotion will only arise if there is any vacancy on the post of clerk to be filled by promotion, and if the concerned department decides to fill up any such vacancy/vacancies by promotion, and if the petitioner fulfills eligibility requirements and qualifications for promotion to the post of clerk. Further, in case promotion is to be made on the post of clerk all the eligible candidates including the petitioner will be considered and the promotion will be done according to norms and procedure laid down in relevant rules etc. for making promotion.