Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3515 (ALL)

Surya Bali Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-11-26

DILIP GUPTA, SATISH CHANDRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Dilip Gupta and Dr. Satish Chandra, JJ. The petitioner, who is presently posted as Principal Grade-II in Government Industrial Training Institute, Shahganj, District Jaunpur, has filed this petition for a direction upon respondent nos.1 and 2 namely the State of U.P. and the Director (Training and Employment), Guru Govind Singh Marg, U.P. Lucknow to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Principal Grade-II in the department with effect from 2001 which is the date on which, according to the petitioner, his juniors (respondent nos.4 and 5) had been promoted on the said post. 2. It transpires from the records of the writ petition that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.35517 of 2009 claiming notional promotion from the date his juniors had been promoted. The petition was disposed of on 20 July 2009 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner by giving opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order thereon. It further transpires that subsequently the representation filed by the petitioner was decided by an order dated 30 October 2009, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 17 to the writ petition. This order was subsequently put in abeyance by the order dated 18 November 2009 and the petitioner was directed to file objections, if any, against the order dated 30 October 2009. An office order dated 14 July 2010 was thereafter issued regarding promotion of the petitioner and other officers. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner should have been promoted with effect from 2001 when his juniors were promoted and not from the date of issuance of the order i.e. 14 July 2010. 4. This petition has been filed after more than four years and four months. No satisfactory explanation has been offered by the petitioner for this enormous delay in filing this petition. Any order passed at this stage would have the result of placing the petitioner over and above all such persons who were promoted in 2001 or thereafter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Purshottam Kumar Kaundal Vs. Any order passed at this stage would have the result of placing the petitioner over and above all such persons who were promoted in 2001 or thereafter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Purshottam Kumar Kaundal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.1 wherein the Court held that since the concerned person was wrongly not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor, he deserved to be now considered and if found suitable, entitled to all consequential benefits. 6. This decision does not help the petitioner. In the first instance, the petitioner was considered for promotion and an order dated 14 July 2010 was passed. All that the petitioner now contends is that he should be given retrospective promotion from 2001. Such a relief should have been claimed by the petitioner immediately after the order dated 14 July 2010 was passed as it has been emphasised time and again by the Courts that reliefs for seniority and promotion should be claimed at the earliest. The petitioner, however, has filed this petition after four years and four months without giving any satisfactory explanation. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches alone and is, accordingly, dismissed.