Prahlad vs State of U.P. and Others

Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri M.A. Qadeere, learned Senior Counsel for the Public Service Commission.

The Petitioner applied in response to the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission (for short ''the Commission'') on 7.10.1998 as a Scheduled Caste candidate in the Combined Lower Subordinate Exam, 1998. The Petitioner cleared the preliminary examination and thereafter he appeared in the main examination on 16.11.1999 and was declared successful and thereafter he was subjected to interview on 16.11.1999. The Petitioner was finally selected and recommended for appointment by the Commission in Subordinate Cane Services Grade-II on 23.5.2001 as Cane Development Inspector Grade-II and accordingly he was issued appointment letter on 29.5.2001 by the Commission. The Petitioner served on the said post for a period of four and a half years. The Commission by means of the impugned order reshuffled the select list in pursuance to the judgment of this Court and appointed the Petitioner in the Entertainment Tax Department as Entertainment Tax Inspector. The Petitioner came to know about the said posting on 19.10.2005 and he immediately approached this Court by filing the present writ petition and at the time of filing the writ petition an interim order was granted in favour of the Petitioner.

Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that similar controversy arose in the case of Manoj Kumar Rajput v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2009 (1) ADJ 161 (DB), in which the present controversy was taken into consideration and it was held that consequence of Triloki Nath Misra''s case decided in Writ Petition No. 1092 of 2002 was not for reshuffling of persons, who have already joined on the post in question and served for a considerable long time.

Counsel for the Commission, on the other hand, has submitted that the Petitioner has himself opted for the post and in the view of the preference given by the Petitioner he has been adjusted on the aforesaid post while making reshuffling. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the opposite parties.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

The argument of counsel for the opposite parties was taken into consideration by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Rajput (supra) in para 11 of the judgment, which reads as under:

The Petitioner was selected and joined as Labour Enforcement Officer. He took charge on 15.2.2001 and is serving in the department. He has acquired special knowledge and must have attained seniority with legitimate expectation for further promotion. It is not appropriate at this stage to disturb his position and to compel him to join another department as an Entertainment Tax Inspector Grade-2. The directions to fill up vacancies, in Triloki Nath Misra''s case did not require the State Government to disturb the settled position and the appointments of persons, who are serving in the department in which hey were initially appointed for last many years.

The case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid observation and he has served in the department for a period of four and a half years and having served for such a long time he has gained considerable experience on that post and, therefore, he could not be disturbed. May be that the Petitioner has given option at one point of time for the present category, but he could not be adjusted in other category having worked for a period of four and a half years and that controversy having been settled by this Court in Manoj Kumar Rajput''s case (supra), this Court is not inclined to take a different view. The argument of counsel for the Commission, therefore, fails.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 12.5.2005. The consequences will follow under law.