AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devendra Kumar Arora, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to include the name of the petitioner in the list of eligible group ''D'' employees for promotion on the group ''C'' post and consider and promote the petitioner on group ''C'' post of clerk in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Lowest Grade(Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001 w.e.f. the date of completion of five years of service with all consequential benefits.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was initially appointed under Dying in Harness Rules in the year 1995 on the ClassIV post of peon. The State Government framed the promotion rules ''The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group ''C'' posts of the Lowest Grade(Recruitment by Promotion), Rules, 2001, the Rule 5 provides that 15 per cent of the ministerial Group ''C'' post shall be filled by promotion through the selection committee from amongst substantively appointed group ''D'' employees who have passed the High School examination and further 5% from amongst substantively appointed group ''D'' employees who have passed the Intermediate examination and have completed 5 years of service. The Rule 7 of promotion rules further provides that appointing authority shall determine the number of vacancies to be filled during the course of year of recruitment.
Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that opposite parties have not taken any step to determine the vacancies for promotion in pursuance of Rule 7 because of which petitioner and other candidates are suffering. Petitioner''s counsel submits that the Chief Engineer(Headquarter2) taking note of the fact that there is no determination of vacancies as provided under the Rule passed an order dated 11.08.2009 directing opposite party no. 4 to give list of eligible candidates alongwith vacancies under 20% promotional quota. The opposite party no. 6 prepared the list for eligible candidates of group ''D'' employees and sent the same to the opposite party no. 5 vide letter dated 24.09.2009 but the name of the petitioner is missing in the said list.
Petitioner in order to ventilate his grievance, submitted a representation dated 04.12.2009(Annexure no. 6 to the writ petition) before the opposite party no. 6. Prayer of the petitioner''s counsel is that the necessary direction be issued to the opposite party no. 6 to consider the representation of the petitioner within stipulated period fixed by this Court.
Learned Standing counsel has no objection to the prayer of the petitioner.
In view of the above, since the learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer only to issue necessary directions to the opposite party no. 6 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, as such, without entering into the merit of the case, opposite party no. 6 is hereby directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure no. 6 to the writ petition) by means of speaking and reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and communicate the result of the same to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.