Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 151 (ALL)

Vedpal Sharma v. State Of U. P.

2010-01-12

SHISHIR KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The claim made by the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee in the institution and was confirmed subsequently. There is only one sanctioned post of clerk in the institution and Sri G. S. Tomar who was working on the said post, retired on 31.7.2009. The petitioner, who is at serial no.4 in the order of seniority of Class-IV employees, as all the three candidates who are senior to the petitioner are not eligible to be promoted on the said post, therefore, the petitioner is the only candidate to be considered and promoted on the said post. To that effect the petitioner has already submitted an application before respondent no.4 but no action has been taken and subsequent reminders have also been submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner has also submitted a representation to respondent no.2, District Inspector of Schools to that effect, but no action has been taken by the Committee of Management as well as by District Inspector of Schools. 3. The petitoner has also relied upon a judgment reported in (2007) 3 UPLBEC 2728 Munna Lal Vs. Devendra Bahadur Singh Chandel & others. Taking support of the aforesaid judgment learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being a single post, it can only be filled up by promotion and it cannot be filled up by direct recruitment of the eligible candidates, available in the institution working in Class-IV. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record as up till date no decision has been taken by the authority below, therefore, it will be? in the interest of justice that the respondents may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders specifically in accordance with law after considering the Division Bench judgment of this Court within a specific period. 5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly with a direction to respondents no.2 and 4 to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders regarding promotion of the petitioner in Class-III by a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 6. No order is passed as to costs.