Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1865 (ALL)

MANNI LAL Petitioner v. UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

2006-08-04

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2006
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Dharam Pal Singh for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Gangwar for the respondent No. 5 and Sri P.S. Baghel appearing for the University. 2. This writ petition is directed against selection and promotion of respondent No. 5 in class III post vide University Order dated 24.3.2004 (Annexure-7) to the writ petition. The only ground taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned order is that the respondent was not eligible for being considered for promotion to class-III post and, therefore, his selection and promotion is illegal and void-ab-initio. It is pointed out that the respondent No. 5 was appointed as class IV employee on compassionate basis w.e.f. 1.4.1999 and, therefore, has not completed 5 years’ continuous service. The advertisement for promotion was issued on 22.12.2003, wherein 7.1.2004 was last date for submission of application form, on which date the respondent No. 5 has less than five years’ continuous service and, therefore, was not eligible. Reliance is placed on the Government Order dated 22.1.1985 laying down eligibility and qualification for promotion of class IV employee to class III post, which provides that temporary and permanent employee (other than ad-hoc and daily wagers), who have rendered continuous 5 years’ service in class IV post shall be eligible for promotion within 15% promotion quota to class III post. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the continuous service contemplated under the Government Order dated 22.1.1985 means regular service and since the respondent No. 5 lacks the aforesaid qualification, therefore, his selection and appointment to class III post is illegal. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University, wherein it has been stated that the respondent No. 5 was engaged as daily wage employee on 1.2.1990 and since then he was continuously working in the University. However, on 1.4.1999, he was appointed on the post of Mali under dying-in-harness provisions. The list showing the period of service of various employees including the respondent No. 5 has also been filed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit, wherein the respondent No. 5 has been shown to have worked continuously since 1.2.1990. The petitioner was also engaged as daily wager on 1.9.1990 on class IV post and was made regular on 1.4.1998. 5. The list showing the period of service of various employees including the respondent No. 5 has also been filed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit, wherein the respondent No. 5 has been shown to have worked continuously since 1.2.1990. The petitioner was also engaged as daily wager on 1.9.1990 on class IV post and was made regular on 1.4.1998. 5. The short question required to be considered in this writ petition is whether the Government Order dated 22.1.1985 requiring 5 years’ continuous service would mean 5 years’ regular service or 5 years’ continuous service irrespective of nature of appointment whether daily wage, ad-hoc, temporary or permanent. In my view, a bare perusal of the said Government Order shows that it provides two qualification for class IV employee entitled to be promoted on class III post— (1) Permanent or temporary employees (other than ad-hoc and daily wagers), (2) must have completed 5 years’ continuous service on class-IV post. 6. The length of continuous service has no co-relation with the nature of appointment in the said Government Order and the only requirement is that at the time of consideration of class IV employee for the promotion to class III post, he must be a permanent or temporary employee (other than ad-hoc or daily wager), and so far as the length of service is concerned, it should be since it is a 5 years’ continuous service irrespective of nature of appointment. Thus an employee having completed 5 years’ continuous service, would be eligible for consideration for promotion to class III post. It is not disputed that in case the service other than regular service would have to be taken into account in the aforesaid Government Order, the respondent No. 5 was eligible for promotion on class III post. Therefore, his selection and promotion in class III post cannot be faulted. No other point has been argued. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ———