Allahabad High Court
Sri Bhagwat vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 December, 2019
Bench: Bharati Sapru, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 35 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 530 of 2016 Appellant :- Sri Bhagwat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Girijesh Tiwari,Ashok Khare,Saumya Mandhyan,Siddharth Khare,Sri Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
(Delivered by Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J) The appellant-petitioner admittedly, completed his 'Prathama' and 'Madhyma' in the year 1991 and 1998 respectively from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. The petitioner-appellant was initially appointed as a Class IV employee on 23.8.1980 in the Public Works Department. Later on he joined as 'Daftari' on 04.1.1989. He was promoted as Junior Clerk on 28.1.1994. He was further promoted as Senior Assistant on 27.12.2015 and also promoted as Head Assistant by order dated 11.3.2015.
A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.10.2015 mentioning that he was not entitled for promotion as the certificates of 'Prathama' and 'Madhyama' were not equivalent to the High School or Intermediate respectively. After hearing the petitioner, the respondent no.4 vide order dated 05.11.2015 cancelled the promotion granted to the petitioner-appellant on the post of Junior Clerk which was granted to him in the year 1994. The petitioner-appellant had questioned the order dated 05.11.2015 before the learned single Judge.
The learned Single Judge has relied upon a judgment passed by the Apex Court in Rajasthan Pradesh Vs. Sardarshahar & Anr Vs. Union of India & Ors; 2010 (12) SCC 609 as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Urmila Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr, 2012 (1) ADJ, 346, wherein it has been held that "Prathma" and "Madhyama" (Visharad) conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan are not equivalent to the High School and Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education of U.P. and accordingly dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 01.4.2016.
The appellant-petitioner has questioned the correctness of the impugned order dated 01.4.2016 in the present special appeal.
Ms.Saumya Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner submitted that the appellant-petitioner had not concealed the fact that he had passed 'Prathma' and 'Madhyama' from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Without questioning the qualifications of the petitioner, the respondents had granted promotion to the petitioner-appellant from Class-IV to Daftari, thereafter to Junior Clerk; thereafter as Senior Assistant and finally as Head Assistant therefore, the department was stopped from questioning the qualifications of the appellant-petitioner after a period of almost 35 years. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner further submitted that the judgment whereby the certificates issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad were declared not to be equivalent to High School and Intermediate was passed much after the appointment and promotion was granted to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has not disputed that the certificates issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad are not equivalent to the High School and Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Heard Ms.Saumya Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner and Shri. P.K. Ganguli, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.
We are of the considered opinion that since the certificates issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,Allahabad are not equivalent to the High School and Intermediate examination, therefore, the appellant-petitioner is not entitled for appointment/promotion, as the appellant-petitioner did not possess the essential qualification for the appointment/promotion.
The fact that the appellant-petitioner was allowed to work for number of years did not confer any right upon him as the appellant-petitioner was not qualified for appointment/promotion.
It is trite law that illegal appointment and promotion could not confer any right upon the appellant-petitioner to enjoy the benefit of such illegal appointment/promotion merely because he worked on the promotional post for a long time.
In view of the above, we do not find any reasonable ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed.
The special appeal is dismissed.
Order Date:-6.12.2019 SB