Allahabad High Court
Dileep Kumar Gupta And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And 26 Others on 23 May, 2016
Bench: Tarun Agarwala, Vinod Kumar Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23084 of 2016 Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Gupta And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 26 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hridai Narain Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.D.Singh Shekher,Nisheeth Yadav Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra,J.
We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri H.N.Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.D.Singh Shekher, the learned Senior Advocate along with Sri M.M.Sharma, the learned counsel for respondent no.5, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Rajeev Misra, the learned counsel appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, respondent no.3.
Seven Passenger Tax Superintendents, who were subsequently promoted as Passenger Tax Officer, and another person directly appointed as Passenger Tax Officer filed writ petition no. 60185 of 2014 praying that their names should be forwarded for consideration for promotion on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer(A.R.T.O.). This Court by a judgment dated 09.12.2014 after considering all aspects, especially Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2013, which indicated that 49% of the post of A.R.T.O. could be filled up by promotion from those persons, who were substantially appointed as Passenger/Goods Tax Officers and Regional Inspectors(Technical) directed the State Government to forward the list of Passenger/Goods Tax Officers to the Commission to consider their case for promotion to the post of A.R.T.O. The Court made it clear that the list of Regional Inspectors(Technical), which had already been forwarded by the State Government to the Commission would be considered by the Commission together with the list of Passenger/Goods Tax Officers.
(2)Since the said direction was not complied with, a Contempt Application no. 4348 of 2015, Sri Narain Tripathi and 07 others Vs. Sri ArvindSingh Deo,Principal Secretary and another was filed, in which an affidavit of compliance was filed indicating that the names of the Goods/Passenger Tax Officer had been forwarded by the Government by letter dated 16.09.2015.
In the meanwhile, the posts of Goods/Passenger Tax Superintendent and Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) was merged with the post of Goods/Passenger Tax Officer and Regional Inspector (Technical) respectively by the Government Order dated 03.05.2011. Based on this Government Order, a seniority list was prepared, which was challenged by certain Passenger Tax Officers before the Lucknow Bench being Writ Petition no. 1802 of 2015, Vijay Kishore Anand And Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. through Principal Secretary in which an interim order dated 24.11.2015 was passed staying the final seniority list of Passenger Tax/Goods Tax Officers.
As a result of this interim order, the promotion to the post of A.R.T.O. came to a stand still. The Regional Inspectors (Technical) moved a modification application in the instant writ petition, which was duly considered and an order dated 10.12.2015 was passed. The Court after considering the order of the writ Court dated 09.12.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 60158 of 2014, Sri Narain Tripathi And 7 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. And Another modified its order dated 24.11.2015 by an order dated 10.12.2015 observing as under:
"Looking to the facts that about 29 post of the A.R.T.O. are vacant and the Government pursuant to the order passed by this court at Allahabad on 09.12.2014 in writ petition no. 60158 of 2014 had proceeded to consider their promotion, it had forwarded a list to the State Public Services Commission, who had fixed the date for holding a Departmental Promotion (3) Committee, but due to interim order dated 24.11.2015passed by this Court in the present writ petition, the same has been deferred.
Since the seniority as well as eligibility of Regional Inspectors is not disputed by anybody including the petitioner, we feel it appropriate to observe that the Government may proceed to consider the promotion of Regional Inspectors to the post of A.R.T.O. leaving the vacancies for Passenger/Goods Tax Officer to the ratio of their quota, which shall be subject to further order of this Court.
Two weeks further time as prayed by learned Chief Standing Counsel is allowed to file counter affidavit."
The Writ Court directed that since the seniority as well as eligibility of the Regional Inspectors was not in dispute, the Court directed the Government to consider the promotion of Regional Inspectors to the post of A.R.T.O. and the promotion of Passenger/Goods Tax Officer to the ratio of their quota would be subject to further orders of the Court.
Based on this interim order dated 10.12.2015, the final order dated 09.12.2014, came to a stand still. The compliance affidavit filed by the State in Contempt proceedings indicating that they have complied with the orders by forwarding the names of Passenger Tax Officers vide letter dated 16.09.2015 also come to a stand still.
As a result of the interim order dated 10.12.2015, only the names of the Regional Inspectors are being considered for promotion to the post of A.R.T.O. The petitioners contend that they are not covered by the dispute raised by Passenger Tax Officer in Writ Petition No. 1802 of 2015 but are not being considered for promotion. Consequently, the present writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some (4) length, we find that the State Government has further amended Rule 5 of the U.P. Transport Services Rules, 1990 by 5th Amendment Rules, 2016 on 11.04.2016, whereby the 49% promotion from Passenger/Goods Tax Officers and Regional Inspectors (Technical) has further been bifurcated, namely, 24% would be filled up by promotion from substantively appointed Passenger/Goods Tax Officers and 25% by promotion through the Commission from amongst the substantively appointed Regional Inspectors (Technical).
In the light of this amendment, we see no justification in interfering with the process of promotion of Regional Inspectors(Technical) being considered to the extent of their quota for the post of A.R.T.O. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, their post for A.R.T.O. is confined to 24% by promotion under the amended Rules dated 11.04.2016. Their claim is not being considered on account of the interim order dated 10.12.2015 passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1802 of 2015,Vijay Kishore Anand And Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., even though, there is specific final direction of the Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 60158 of 2014.
In our opinion judicial discipline restrains us from clarifying any order of the coordinate Bench of this court. We are of the opinion that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to move an appropriate application for clarification and/or for further orders in Writ Petition No. 1802 of 2015 and for modification of the order dated 10.12.2015.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Dt.23.05.2016 MAA/-
(Vinod Kumar Misra,J.) (Tarun Agarwala,J.)