Allahabad High Court
Vinay Kumar Bajpai And 3 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru The Prin.Secy.In The ... on 18 March, 2024
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23465 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5786 of 2013 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Bajpai And 3 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru The Prin.Secy.In The Deptt.Of Revenueandors Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P. Singh,Avinash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. along with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5792 of 2013 Petitioner :- Manoj Tripathi And 22 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru The Prin.Secy.In The Deptt.Of Revenueandors. Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P. Singh,Amarendra Pratap Singh,Avinash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Both these writ petitions have been heard together as the common controversy is involved therein and they are being decided by this common order.
3. Writ Petition No. 5786 of 2013 has been preferred with the following main reliefs:-
(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.09.2011 contained in Annexure no. 1 to 1-c, and order dated 13.10.2014 passed by Deputy Collector Sadar, Hardoi contained in Annexure no. 1-D with all consequential service.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties particularly Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners, contained in Annexure no. 2, by allotting the year of Lekhpal School Examination, 1990-9 to the petitioners with all benefits of service within a time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
4. Writ Petition No. 5792 of 2013 has been preferred with the following main reliefs:-
"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite parties particularly Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow to allot the year of Lekhpal School Examination 1990-91 to the petitioners with all benefits of service.
(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.10.2014 passed by Deputy Collector, Sadar, Hardoi, order dated 27.11.2014 passed by Deputy Collector, Bilgram, Hardoi, order dated 21.10.2014 passed by Deputy Collector, Sawaijpur, Hardoi, order dated 29.10.2014 passed by Deputy Collector, Shahabad, Hardoi contained in Annexure Nos. 1-A, 2-A, 3-A, 4-A and 5-A respectively with all benefits."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were selected for appointment on the post of Lekhpal in the year 1991 thereafter they were sent for training and on completion of successful training they were appointed on the post of Lekhpal on 17.02.2003. After their joining, they made a representation for giving benefits of service when they were sent for training for the post of Lekhpal.
6. It is further submitted that as per proviso 2 of Rule 5 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1991'), the petitioners are entitled for seniority over the persons who were appointed in subsequent selection, which has specifically been pleaded in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit but the same has not been denied that after the selection of the petitioners, the persons who are selectee of the subsequent selections have been placed above the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not claiming other benefits since the year 1991 except the seniority.
7. For convenience, the said rule is being quoted hereinbelow:-
"5. Seniority where appointments by direct recruitment only- Where according to the service rules appointments are to be made only by the direct recruitment the seniority inter se of the persons appointed on the result of any one selection, shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or the Committee, as the case may be:
Provided that a candidate recruited directly may lose his seniority, if he fails to join without valid reasons when vacancy is offered to him, the decision of the appointing authority as to the validity of reasons, shall be final:
Provided further that the persons appointed on the result of a subsequent selection shall be junior to the persons appointed on the result of a previous selection."
8. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition for the relief which the petitioners are now praying before this Court i.e. to direct the respondents to give the seniority to the petitioners on the post of Lekhpal since the year 1991 as per the Rules, 1991 on the ground that the tentative seniority list of Lekhpal was published for Lucknow Division where these petitioners are posted but they had not filed any objection against the tentative seniority list thereafter the final seniority list was published on 13.12.2021, which has also not been challenged by the petitioners, hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the seniority list is published division-wise. In the division of the petitioners, no such candidate has been placed above the petitioners but in other divisions, persons are placed above the petitioners who are junior to the petitioners as per proviso 2 of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1991 and the promotions are given from the seniority list prepared in the different divisions.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is an admitted case of the petitioners also that they had not ever filed any objection against the tentative seniority list. The petitioners had not filed any such objection taking the plea which have now been argued before this Court. The final seniority list has also been published on 13.12.2021, even against that, the petitioners had not availed any remedy as permissible under the law by challenging the same.
11. All these submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners are vague as not supported by any documentary evidence. Neither the names of those persons who are selectee of the subsequent selections have been made senior to the petitioners nor even Division has been mentioned in which Division they are working and some vague averments have been made in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit not in the writ petition.
12. There is lack of facts to make out any specific case in support of the claim of the petitioners. The relevant facts are not even mentioned in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit. Not even the year of the subsequent selection has been mentioned in pursuance of which those selectees may have been given seniority over the petitioners and no one selectee of subsequent selection alleged to have been given seniority has been made party to the writ petition. There is total lack of relevant facts to support the claim of the petitioners.
13. In the result, both these writ petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.3.2024 Nitesh