Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P.Through The Secy. ... on 4 August, 2010
Author: Satyendra Singh Chauhan
Bench: Satyendra Singh Chauhan
Court No. - 22 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5041 of 2010 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through The Secy. Transport Dept. Lko.And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- D.K.Singh Chauhan Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C,Mahesh Chandra Hon'ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.M.K.Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for O.P.No. 4 and Sri Mahesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation.
Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.4 is taken on record.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a resolution was passed by the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation ( herein after referred to as 'the Corporation') in its meeting dated 30th September 1989 and in the said meeting of the Board of Directors, it was decided that in accordance with Sections 34 and 45 of the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Act 1950 ( herein after referred to as the 'Corporation Act 1950'), the approval may be sought from the Government for promotion under the sports quota. He also states that the provisions of section 45 of the Act are also attracted wherein a specific provision has been made in regard to the Corporation to seek approval if any amendment is sought to be made in the Service Regulations. Learned counsel submits that no approval has been granted up till now by the State Government, therefore, any promotion without there being any proper amendment is without authority of law.
Learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that they could not dispute the aforesaid promotion and states that continuously promotions have been made in pursuance to the resolution of the Corporation. Therefore, the promotion can also be made without approval.
Sri S.M.K.Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P.No.4 has submitted that in pursuance to the Circular dated 1.2.1990 various promotions have been made in the Corporation and various persons have been promoted and the opposite party no.4 has been promoted in pursuance to the directions of this Court wherein it was directed that the representation preferred by the O.P.No.4 for promotion may be considered within the Sports Quota. He further submits that once there was direction of this Court, the promotion of O.P.No.4 can not be faulted in any manner. He has placed reliance upon the Service Regulations of the Corporation wherein it has been provided that relaxation can be given by the Corporation but the said Regulation also provided that the relaxation can be made with the previous sanction of the Government.
Up till now no amendment has been made in the Service Regulations in pursuance to the resolution dated 30.9.1989 and neither the requirement of -2- Sections 34 and 45 of the Corporation Act has been complied with. It is to be noted that if any illegality has been perpetuated, the same can not be relied upon as precedent and the benefit of any illegality committed earlier can not be granted in favour of the opposite party no.4. Therefore, the opposite party no.4, in absence of any provision, can not be promoted under the sports quota.
In view of the aforesaid, the operation of the order dated 28.6.2010 , so far as it relates to promotion of opposite party no.4, shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 4.8.2010 BLY