Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 7 (ALL)

MOHAMMAD SHAMIM v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-01-02

RAJES KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and Sri S.M.Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking promotion on the post of Project Manager. The claim of the petitioners have been denied on the ground that the petitioners do not fulfil the eligibility qualification as provided at Serial No. 18 of Appendix “B” of U.P. Industries Service Rules, 1993. Clause 18 of Appendix “B” reads as follows: 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Draftsman and on the abolition of the said post by Government Order dated 3.8.1984, the petitioners have been absorbed on the post of Power Loom Inspector vide Government Order dated 14.8.1987, which according to the respondents are non-technical post. Thereafter, on the completion of eleven years of the service, the petitioners have been promoted on the post of Assistant Manager (Non Technical) under the aforesaid rules vide order dated 25.9.1998. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners have not been appointed on the post of Assistant Manager (technical) and are occupying the post of Assistant Manager (Non Technical) and are therefore, not eligible to be promoted on the post of Project Manager. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the post of Power Loom Inspector is technical post on which the petitioners have been absorbed and, therefore, the promoted post, namely, Assistant Manager may also be treated as technical post. He further referred to the order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 13881 of 1993 decided on 3.2.2005 wherein a direction has been issued to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion on the post of Project Manager. 5. I do not find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. I do not propose to go in the question whether the post of Power Loom Inspector post is technical post or non-technical post but the fact remains that the petitioners have been promoted on 25.9.1998 on the post of Assistant Manager (Non Technical) and are working on the said post. 6. I do not propose to go in the question whether the post of Power Loom Inspector post is technical post or non-technical post but the fact remains that the petitioners have been promoted on 25.9.1998 on the post of Assistant Manager (Non Technical) and are working on the said post. When the petitioners have been promoted in the year 1998, they have not disputed their promotion on the post of Assistant Manager (Non Technical). Therefore, now it is not open to the petitioners to submit that since the post of Power Loom Inspector was technical post, therefore, the petitioners post, namely, Assistant Manager (Non Technical) should also be treated as the technical post and it cannot be accepted. As per the rules, referred hereinabove only Assistant Manager Technical is eligible for the promotion on the post of Project Manager and, therefore, the claim of petitioners for the promotion on the post of Project Manager has no substance and is accordingly, rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred the letter dated 19.12.2002 written by Deputy director, Industries and submitted that their case is also similar to the case of Ram Krishna Awasthi and others. I have perused the letter. It is of no help to the petitioners so far as the claim of the petitioners is concerned. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ————